- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

RE: Internet helps brutal governments retain control, paper says
by Adam Powell 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

The subject line of this message is not supported by the paper. The full paper, posted at http://www.ceip.org/files/pdf/21KalathilBoas.pdf, says the Internet is not necessarily "an insurmountable threat to authoritarian rule." That is different from saying the Internet "helps brutal governments retain control." The paper begins by noting recent scholarship that has found a positive correlation between Net penetration and democratization -- and correctly noting that does not imply causality, any more than the crowing of a rooster causes the sun to rise. But by relying on official government data on computer *ownership* and on *registered* email accounts, the authors may have encountered a methodological problem that has skewed data for many countries around the world -- including the US. Throughout Asia and Africa and especially in China (I don't have first-hand knowledge of Cuba), relying on such data means you miss the vast majority of the online community that uses hotmail accounts, proxy servers and cybercafes or other non-owned machines for Net access. For every registered user we met in China, we met several who were not registered. So instead of the official Beijing number of 26.5 million people on line (that's the *official* number from China Internet Network Information Center reported today, up 56.8% from last year - details at http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=14423) most experts we contacted said the ratio of unregistered to registered users is 4:1, yielding a total of well over 100 million. That's still a small percentage in a country of billions, but it is different from the paper's 17 million. Why lower than the official numbers? The citation in a footnote takes you to www.chinaoline.com, a Web site in Chicago. The page cited notes one "definition of Internet users rules out Web surfers in Internet cafés" - which would seem to be a problem in a country full of hotmail and yahoo email accounts. So instead they use another method to reach these new, lower numbers: they "conducted online and written surveys of each group to determine the proportion of Web users within each group. The total number of Chinese Internet users was then obtained by calculating the proportion of these groups in relation to the total Chinese population." These are people who go to great pains *not* to be counted or found by the government, but somehow they are expected to respond to an official survey. And if they do not complete the survey, these people do not exist. We also are receiving email from people in countries where, according to this paper, all such traffic is monitored and all users are registered. Not so. Students all seem to know how to use proxy servers and anonymizers and avoid official scrutiny -- and are not reported by those relying on official numbers. But more broadly, the problem is with the "one machine, one user" model of the Internet that most in North America and Europe assume is the standard worldwide. Not so: in Africa, Asia and South America, the standard is "one machine, many users." One example is at www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=11876 based on our first-hand observations and research on the ground, and there are many others on our site. This is not to say the Internet must inevitably topple undemocratic governments. That is the straw man addressed in this report's introduction. But this is to say that it is an important influence in totalitarian countries, enabling a still small but rapidly growing minority to access information directly from outside of their countries -- and to relay that information and their personal views via email to others. Otherwise, what are we to make of the reports by the BBC and the NY Times that China has been forced to change "official" versions of news stories because Chinese can send email to each other (and to those outside of China) with first-hand accounts of what actually happened? Cheers Adam ********** ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

thesis 'internet control and the chinese government'
by Lokman Tsui 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

hi declan, i wanted to point you to my thesis about 'internet control and the chinese government'. The final draft of my thesis is available at http://www.lokman.nu/thesis it is in pdf format and about 800kb. The abstract is below. Abstract Initially, the internet was an open medium with certain characteristics that made it hard to control. According to Western journalists and politicians, the efforts of the Chinese government to control the internet are doomed to fail. This study attempts to counter this view and discusses to what degree the Chinese government can control the internet in China and, more than that, to what degree the internet can be used as a means for control. Methodologically, the four modalities of control (the law, architecture, social norms and the market), set forth by Lessig will be used. As a result, this study will offer a legal, technical, social and economical perspective in discussing the degree of internet control in China. Lessig further argues that the architecture of the internet is undergoing changes that continue to enable control. A prime example of using architecture as a means of control is the concept of the Panopticon prison, invented by Bentham and mediated by Foucault. The concept of the Panopticon will be used to show how the internet can be used as a means for control. The conclusions are that the Chinese government are quite capable of controlling the internet in China and that China has the perfect ingredients for deploying a digital Panopticon. This digital Panopticon will continue to improve and develop, driven by the market. These conclusions show that the internet, to contrary belief, can be controlled and even be used as a means for control. Keywords internet regulation, internet control, social control, political control, censorship, privacy, surveillance, panopticon, Lessig, internet in China, Chinese Internet, media. -- "The lure of imaginary totality is momentarily frozen before the dialectic of desire hastens on within symbolic chains." http://www.lokman.nu [-silent dreams-] http://www.wongkarwai.net Because We Have Taste ********** [Adam is replying to this, and the Subject: line was mine, I admit: http://www.politechbot.com/p-02275.html --DBM]

1 0

President claims supreme power over laws, military -- 750
by Shannon McElyea 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

'signing statement' Dave, I think this is for IP. This matter is worse than the title of this article implies. bye bye checks and balances. "...Bush has been quietly filing ''signing statements" -- "...official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register ..." Unlike a veto, they are not reviewed by congress. "...Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle- blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research. ..." http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/ bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/ Bush challenges hundreds of lawsPresident cites powers of his office By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006 WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle- blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research. "... Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military. ..." "...Bush was following a practice that has ''been used for several administrations" and that ''the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution." But the words ''in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution" are the catch, legal scholars say, because Bush is according himself the ultimate interpretation of the Constitution. And he is quietly exercising that authority to a degree that is unprecedented in US history. Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work. Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register. ..." ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as eugen(a)leitl.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

1 0

[IP] President claims supreme power over laws, military -- 750
by David Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

'signing statement' X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.749.3) Reply-To: dave(a)farber.net Begin forwarded message:

1 0

[Politech] ACLU launches "Don't Spy on Me" campaign; protests [priv]
by Declan McCullagh 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Also there are protests in SF, NYC, Boston, Chicago today: http://saveaccess.org/ I'm planning to stop by the SF one by the SBC stadium at noon. -Declan -------- Original Message -------- Subject: ACLU Launches "Don't Spy on Me" Campaign Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 13:15:25 -0400 From: Barry Steinhardt <BSTEINHARDT(a)aclu.org> To: <declan(a)well.com> Declan, Politechers may be interested to know that the ACLU is launching a nationwide consumer campaign today to respond to the recent revelations about the telecoms and NSA spying. We are: A) asking the FCC to fulfill its regulatory obligation and investigate (Chairman Martin's lame argument that they cannot do so notwithstanding) B) ACLU offices around the country are filing demands with Public Utility Commissions, which often have considerable power to enforce state privacy laws, asking for investigations and cease-and-desist actions. C) Inviting citizens to add their names to these actions, and making it easy to do so via www.aclu.org/dontspy Our appeal is below. Thanks, Barry ------ Barry Steinhardt Director, Technology and Liberty Project, ACLU Dear Friend, It's illegal and un-American for your phone company to hand over your phone records to the government without a legal order. But it looks like that's just what they're doing: violating the privacy and rights of millions of innocent Americans in the process. The phone companies have no right to forfeit your privacy. And just last night we learned that the FCC has refused to investigate these illegal actions, using the same "state secrets" excuse used by the very phone companies it's supposed to hold accountable. Today, the ACLU is launching a nationwide consumer campaign demanding that regulators do their jobs and protect our privacy. We need your help. <Act now to stop phone companies from abusing your privacy.> <www.aclu.org/dontspy> It's outrageous that the agency created to guard the people's interest is burying its head in the sand during what may be the most massive abuse of customer privacy in American history. We can't stand idly by while corporations, federal regulators and even our elected leaders fail to champion our rights or uphold our basic system of checks and balances. The power to right these wrongs ultimately resides in the hands of the American people. The ACLU is filing formal documents with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) insisting that they fulfill their regulatory obligation and investigate this breach of consumer trust. At the same time, ACLU offices across the country are filing similar demands with regulatory authorities in dozens of states. Regulators need to hear that the public demands action. The longer the list of names, the more powerful our message. Federal and state officials must use their authority to investigate and fine the phone companies, and your voice will make a difference. Act now to stop phone companies from abusing your privacy. We must not allow the government and the phone companies to collude in this massive illegal attack on our privacy and our trust. And we certainly can't wait for Congress to act, or for the phone companies to reverse course. Join us in telling the FCC that we won't take no for an answer -- they must investigate. And don't let the states follow the FCC's wrong-headed example. We are simultaneously filing 20 actions across the nation TODAY. Please add your name and your voice. All you have to do is use our online form. We'll add your name to our demand for FCC action and to local filings in applicable states. After you sign on, you can also send an email directly to each of the four FCC commissioners letting them know Americans want answers and action. Act now to stop phone companies from abusing your privacy. As always, thank you for standing with us. Every voice in this fight is going to matter, so please take action today. Sincerely, Anthony D. Romero Executive Director ACLU _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/) ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

1 0

6:30 pm Monday 30 June 2003 Refund Day II: The case of Adam Kosmin vs. Toshiba, in the matter of Adam's refund, may be be tried but might be put off for another day.
by None 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Efforts at an out of court settlement having failed, the issue between Adam Kosmin and Toshiba will at some unknown date be tried in a court of law. The case may be tried on Monday 30 June 2003, but the court might rather set yet another date some time in the future, perhaps a month from now. So far Adam Kosmin and Toshiba have been out to the Queens County courthouse three times. This Monday's appearance will be the fourth in this matter. Adam Kosmin has written an important article on Refund Day II and what we can do to help the courts and the press and the people understand: http://linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6968 At 5:00 pm on Monday 30 June 2003 Adam Kosmin and some tribesfolk will gather at the coffee house across the street from the Queens County courthouse. All supporters of free software and all students of contract law are invited! If the case is heard this Monday, it might be useful to have on hand more than one laptop computer running a free OS. As always, Knoppix, or Knoppix variant, disks are welcome. These tools may help us explain to the judge some facts that are not often presented in large circulation newspapers. If convenient, wear standard CLOTHES OF RESPECT. Do not interrupt or shout out in court. You may not read in court. You must sit and pay attention and be ready to help the judge and Adam. Here is information about Refund Day I: http://www.svlug.org/events/refund http://www.netmonger.net/~onr/ny/welcome.html http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/02/biztech/articles/16windows.html Adam Kosmin is the leader of Refund Day II and all questions should be addressed to him at info(a)windowsrefund.net For more about Refund Day II: http://www.windowsrefund.net This action is not the whole of Refund Day II. It is just the beginning. Already other actions, not yet public, are in process. No matter what happens in court we will continue the fight. What is at stake is our right to private ownership of computers and our right to free private, tribal, business, and public use of the Net. <blockquote what="information" contact-for-more-information="info(a)windowsrefund.net"> 1. court Queens County Court 2. place of court 89-17 Sutphin Blvd. Jamaica, NY 11435 718-262-7123 3. day and time of case Monday 30 June 2003 6:30 P.M. in the Small Claims/Commercial Claims Part Courtroom First Floor Room 101 Note that the room number may actually be different. It is best to arrive early and meet with Adam at the coffee house across the street. 4. name and/or number of action Index number: 531QSC2003 Kosmin, Adam vs. Toshiba American Information Systems Inc 5. ways to get out there By subway, take the F train to Sutphin Blvd. The court house is on the same street. It is several blocks from the subway stop. </blockquote> Note: This action is not a formal official action of LXNY, though many LXNY members support the rule of law, and further, the particular application of the rule of law to Microsoft and Toshiba. Jay Sulzberger <secretary(a)lxny.org> Corresponding Secretary LXNY LXNY is New York's Free Computing Organization. http://www.lxny.org ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0

Re: [p2p-hackers] Peer-to-Peer Journal (P2PJ) CFP
by Sam Joseph 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Hi David, Although I agree with you about the copyright issue, I think that this kind of thing is pretty common with academic journals. I'm not saying that makes it right, but it is true. Every time I get a paper published in a book or journal I have to sign away my rights to the paper. It is a wonderful little earner for the academic publishing industry generally. They have academics working for free to generate the content, and then they charge other academics to get access to the journal. I think it is another one of those fucked up things that we can't do very much about. However I would imagine that the publishers of academic journals would say that there is such low readership that without free content and exorbitant fees to libraries the entire thing would not be profitable, i.e. they couldn't make enough money to pay the people who work to actually print the journal. At the moment P2PJournal is not making any money, is not charging you to read the journal, and everyone is putting in their time for free. As it happens I have yet to have any say in the copyright issues. I'm working on trying to get the P2PJournal to serve the best interests of the P2P community. I will pass on your comments to the Editor-in-chief. BTW, I think the standard deal with most journals is that you can publish the work on your own personal website as well - but it would be good to make that explicit. As for a complete copyright share - personally that sounds fine to me, but one could argue that if the same work was completely free to be published anywhere else then why would anyone want to read the P2PJournal. I'm not sure I totally buy the argument myself, but I think the reason that most academic journals and conferences give for holding on to the copyright of the papers they publish is that if they didn't then they would be unable to maintain their readership or attendees. Whether this is true or not is open to question. There is also a sot of contradiction in terms of having a P2PJournal with restrictive copyright rules - but then such is life. Let us see what we can evolve. CHEERS> SAM David Gvthberg wrote: > I checked out your "writer's guidelines" and was somewhat shocked. >You state that after accepting submission of a paper to your journal, >the journal (that is Raymond F. Gao, Editor-in-Chief) gets the copyright >of the submitted text. > >That's pretty silly especially since you don't even pay for the work >and expect people to write about their inventions and research. > >When my mother hired an artist to do the pictures to her children's >books we used a much better way: We signed a contract stating a "split" >or "shared" copyright. That is, both the artist and my mother can do >what they want with the pictures. Thus both parties can reprint them, >sell them and use them in any way they see fit and booth are happy! > >I suggest you should do the same, or people like me will never bother >to write for your journal. Among other things, your "rule" makes it >impossible to send you texts that one has already published in other >places and your rule makes it impossible to reuse that material as >one sees fit. If I write about my inventions I of course want to be >able to reuse any text I write about them. But writing for you is >a one time thing and thus not worth the effort. > >And don't just say: "This is how it is normally done." Just because >it's common to do like that it doesn't make it right. > >But I do like the thought of a p2p journal! _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers(a)zgp.org http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers _______________________________________________ Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences: http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

1 0

Re: [silk] Bitcoin
by Alaric Snell-Pym 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On 05/18/11 07:42, Eugen Leitl wrote: >> It is possible for any current governmental agency to hijack the entire >> system, due to their access to supercomputer infrastructures and/or immense >> budgets. This will however become less and less possible while bitcoin >> continues to grow and is already a massive and technological challenge which >> I do not see any governmental institutions execute proper. > > I'm not so sure > that's true. Given the network at all times knows the amount of nodes out > there (hence the 50%+1 rule for consensus) it would be trivial for a NSA > (Nation State Actor, not TLA) to stand up 50%+1 virtual nodes fast enough to > gain consensus and usurp the currencies (tokens) if I understand correctly the > mechanism for determining legitimate tokens from the EconTalk interview. Am I > missing something here? It's not quite "amount of nodes" as "CPU capacity". You'd need to have more than 50% of the processing capacity of the system to consistently win the "races" to find the next block. Currently, the system is going at about 1.5 trillion hashes per second (my macbook does about 1 million per second, for comparison). So an attacker would need a not-inconsiderable heap of real hardware, rather than just a load of virtual nodes. Within their capacity for sure, but still not something they'll do lightly. ABS -- Alaric Snell-Pym http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Re: [silk] Bitcoin
by Alaric Snell-Pym 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On 05/18/11 07:42, Eugen Leitl wrote: >> It is possible for any current governmental agency to hijack the entire >> system, due to their access to supercomputer infrastructures and/or immense >> budgets. This will however become less and less possible while bitcoin >> continues to grow and is already a massive and technological challenge which >> I do not see any governmental institutions execute proper. > > I'm not so sure > that's true. Given the network at all times knows the amount of nodes out > there (hence the 50%+1 rule for consensus) it would be trivial for a NSA > (Nation State Actor, not TLA) to stand up 50%+1 virtual nodes fast enough to > gain consensus and usurp the currencies (tokens) if I understand correctly the > mechanism for determining legitimate tokens from the EconTalk interview. Am I > missing something here? It's not quite "amount of nodes" as "CPU capacity". You'd need to have more than 50% of the processing capacity of the system to consistently win the "races" to find the next block. Currently, the system is going at about 1.5 trillion hashes per second (my macbook does about 1 million per second, for comparison). So an attacker would need a not-inconsiderable heap of real hardware, rather than just a load of virtual nodes. Within their capacity for sure, but still not something they'll do lightly. ABS -- Alaric Snell-Pym http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

6:30 pm Monday 30 June 2003 Refund Day II: The case of Adam Kosmin vs. Toshiba, in the matter of Adam's refund, may be be tried but might be put off for another day.
by None 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Efforts at an out of court settlement having failed, the issue between Adam Kosmin and Toshiba will at some unknown date be tried in a court of law. The case may be tried on Monday 30 June 2003, but the court might rather set yet another date some time in the future, perhaps a month from now. So far Adam Kosmin and Toshiba have been out to the Queens County courthouse three times. This Monday's appearance will be the fourth in this matter. Adam Kosmin has written an important article on Refund Day II and what we can do to help the courts and the press and the people understand: http://linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6968 At 5:00 pm on Monday 30 June 2003 Adam Kosmin and some tribesfolk will gather at the coffee house across the street from the Queens County courthouse. All supporters of free software and all students of contract law are invited! If the case is heard this Monday, it might be useful to have on hand more than one laptop computer running a free OS. As always, Knoppix, or Knoppix variant, disks are welcome. These tools may help us explain to the judge some facts that are not often presented in large circulation newspapers. If convenient, wear standard CLOTHES OF RESPECT. Do not interrupt or shout out in court. You may not read in court. You must sit and pay attention and be ready to help the judge and Adam. Here is information about Refund Day I: http://www.svlug.org/events/refund http://www.netmonger.net/~onr/ny/welcome.html http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/02/biztech/articles/16windows.html Adam Kosmin is the leader of Refund Day II and all questions should be addressed to him at info(a)windowsrefund.net For more about Refund Day II: http://www.windowsrefund.net This action is not the whole of Refund Day II. It is just the beginning. Already other actions, not yet public, are in process. No matter what happens in court we will continue the fight. What is at stake is our right to private ownership of computers and our right to free private, tribal, business, and public use of the Net. <blockquote what="information" contact-for-more-information="info(a)windowsrefund.net"> 1. court Queens County Court 2. place of court 89-17 Sutphin Blvd. Jamaica, NY 11435 718-262-7123 3. day and time of case Monday 30 June 2003 6:30 P.M. in the Small Claims/Commercial Claims Part Courtroom First Floor Room 101 Note that the room number may actually be different. It is best to arrive early and meet with Adam at the coffee house across the street. 4. name and/or number of action Index number: 531QSC2003 Kosmin, Adam vs. Toshiba American Information Systems Inc 5. ways to get out there By subway, take the F train to Sutphin Blvd. The court house is on the same street. It is several blocks from the subway stop. </blockquote> Note: This action is not a formal official action of LXNY, though many LXNY members support the rule of law, and further, the particular application of the rule of law to Microsoft and Toshiba. Jay Sulzberger <secretary(a)lxny.org> Corresponding Secretary LXNY LXNY is New York's Free Computing Organization. http://www.lxny.org ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0