- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: PeerPoint Discussion - please don't use for other topics
by Miles Fidelman 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Actually, I think both comments are partially on the mark, and partially off the mark. We HAVE had peer-to-peer applications, of various sorts, for years. USENET comes to mind (I can't think of very much that any centralized social networks do that USENET news wasn't doing years ago. And at one point, someone did a very nice implementation of USENET on top of a distributed hash table). The failure of USENET has a lot more do to with not finding a viable solution to spam than anything else. Currently, distributed CVS systems (notably GIT) are a peer-to-peer application that's very successful. And then there's torrent. Re. Wikipedia and Linux: Both build on rather rich ecosystems of prior art, and development communities. Wikis came first, in various flavors, wikipedia. The world wide web virtual library predated wikipedia by decades. It took a lot of experimentation, plus vision and drive before wikipedia coalesced. Linux builds on the legacy of Unix and lets not forget all the stuff done by Stallman and the FSF (e.g, all the gnu tools and gnu userspace without which Linux would be useless). The problem with Poor Richard's proposal is severalfold: 1. lack of specificity - "let's build a P2P application suite" is a pretty content free statement - the PeerPoint "specification" really isn't anything resembling much of a specification 2. lack of vision - Ted Nelson's "Dream Machine's" book and Xanadu concept never really led to any widely used code, but they sure inspired a lot of people - precisely because Nelson laid out a vision of new capabilities -- other people went on to implement some of those ideas 3. lack of understanding about how technology evolves - open source or not - it involves an ecosystem and a process of incremental development, punctuated by flashes of insight 4. lack of anything motivating - is there really that much dissatisfaction with FaceBook? I mean, an awful lot of people use it, and there are alternatives for old reprobates like me who find FaceBook pretty insipid and useless (except for keeping track of my kid). For real work, email lists have been around an awfully long time, and don't seem to be going away anytime soon. The folks who REALLY worry about privacy/secrecy are using VPNs, encryption, darknets, etc. "Let's build an application suite" is a mantra that leads to things like MS Office. "Let's build an open source application suite" leads to OpenOffice and LibreOffice - which are essentially not-as-good imitations of MS Office. I simply don't see anything in the PeerPoint proposal that goes beyond "let's do x, y, and z, but let's do it peer-to-peer." Now if Poor Richard were to start developing stuff, that actually did useful and interesting things, I expect it would attract a community. But just saying "I think people should do <this>," where <this> is generally uninspired and uninteresting, is not a recipe for anything. </end rant> Paul Hughes wrote: > Mark, > > Wikipedia and Linux are two prime examples of substantive creations greater than Poor Richard's proposal that were done almost entirely by volunteers with no desire for compensation other than the joy of creating something awesome. > > I believe the time is ripe for PeerPoint or something equivalent. In fact it's long overdue. Because of the growing dissatisfaction with Facebook, and efforts to control and censor the net, there are more people wanting, and willing to build something like this than ever before. > > Paul > > > > On Jun 18, 2012, at 20:15, Mark Janssen-Rosenbluth <dreamingforward(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Richard, there is very little such application suites on the "drawing board" because we're way ahead of you. These conversations have been going on for over a decade. You're excited to get started, so you start afresh, but many of us have heard it all before. That there isn't something more by now is a difficult fact to explain. But probably the biggest reason is that after the litigation over p2p file-sharing and such, no one (with financial resources or political clout) has taken the "leap of faith" to "get it done". Such a comprehensive and radical project isn't that far from the process that created the protocols of the whole Internet to begin with... and you know how many years and millions that took.... >> >> So, if you want this to happen, I suggest you solve the political and/or financing problem.... don't go rei-inventing the wheel. >> >> mark j -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra ----- 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

[liberationtech] Pakistan: PTAbs alleged persistent pursuit of a URL filtration and blocking system is not acceptable
by Sana Saleem 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Hi all, Sharing this with caution. Since the liberationtech community played a crucial role in working with Pakistani civil society in pressuring the Pakistan Government to back out of the URL Filtration System. *Please note we are following up on the situation, moving with caution, but since a court case is involved the statement has been issued in light of legal requirements. Notices have been issued to PTA, Ministry of IT and the Government. * Statement Link (See here)<http://bolobhi.org/press-release-public-statements/press-releases/ptas-alle…> *Please note that this is an unconfirmed report but from a reliable source, we are following the situation and will be publishing confirmed reports<http://bolobhi.org/> immediately. * *Karachi 20th June 2012:* We received information from a reliable source that Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) issued a notification to other government departments announcing the installation of a filtering system. This has in turn been sent to some IT companies. As citizens concerned about internet freedom and free flow of information, this unconfirmed news is of grave concern to us. With great caution, we would like to share an update on this situation: The exact words in the email are pasted below. b Please note that PTA has deployed an automatic filtering system and is directly blocking sites deemed as disseminating objectionable content. Our upstream providers are no longer managing this process. We regret any inconvenience this may have caused you.b The content in the email suggests that the ISPs will no longer be responsible for blocking websites and that the PTA will now be able to block sites at will. The content in the email suggests that the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will no longer be responsible for blocking websites and that the PTA will now be able to block sites at will. *We are currently working in to verifying this news from various other sources. We are in communication with government officials who have committed to update us on the issue. We issue this statement with caution.* As a reminder: On the 17th of April 2012, seven individuals* through their advocates Haider Waheed and Basil Nabi Malik, petitioned the High Court of Sindh at Karachi challenging the arbitrary and random acts of the PTA in blocking/censoring and restricting access to various websites in violation of the fundamental rights of the owners of the websites/online forums as well as the public at large, and without affording the aggrieved persons an opportunity of being heard or due notice. The Honorable High Court of Sindh issued notice to the Federation of Pakistan, through the Secretary, Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunication, and the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, through its Chairman, and furthermore ordered the PTA said not to block any website other than in accordance with the provisions of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996. A letter to the PTA has already been issued demanding a clarification on the issue and we would like to reassert that any steps by the PTA to pursue ad hoc blocking will be a violation of the court stay order. If true, this is a set-back to the free-flow of information and internet freedom in Pakistan. Despite the Ministry of IT making a commitment to Bushra Gohar, Member of National Assembly,the PTAbs persistent pursuit of a URL filtration and blocking system is extremely disappointing and shows disregard for democratic values. *Bolo Bhi means bSpeak upb, we are an organization with focus on advocacy, policy and research. Our focus areas <http://areas/>include human rights with focus on gender and minority rights, internet freedom and privacy. We believe it is crucial to bridge the gap between rights advocates, policy makers, media and average citizens. Bridging the gap enables collective strength and concentrated focus on the areas that require attention. * _______________________________________________ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech(a)lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech ----- 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

Secure communications + Human rights
by mendicott＠igc.org 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Technomads, Good day from Western Australia! I recently met with Peace Brigades International (PBI) http://www.igc.org/pbi/ , and was asked how naive users could use affordable secure communications from extreme remote locations.... I don't have experience with PGP or other privacy technologies. Is there anything like a "PGP net", listserv, or email-based discussion technology available that incorporates security or privacy techniques?? If this is not an appropriate topic for the Technomads group, please email me directly with any suggestions, thanks!! Peace on Earth, - Marcus Endicott http://www.mendicott.com --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Interesting!
by Fred Maia 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

New paint blocks out cell phone signals ROCHESTER, N.Y., March 1 (UPI) -- A Rochester, N.Y., company has developed paint that can switch between blocking cell phone signals and allowing them through. "You could use this in a concert hall, allowing cell phones to work before the concert and during breaks, but shutting them down during the performance," said Michael Riedlinger, president of NaturalNano. Using nanotechnology, particles of copper are inserted into nanotubes, which are ultra-tiny tubes that occur naturally in halloysite clay mined in Utah. Combined with a radio-filtering device that collects phone signals from outside a shielded space, certain transmissions can proceed while others are blocked, the Chicago Tribune reported. However, the wireless phone industry is up in arms over the development. "We oppose any kind of blocking technology," said Joe Farren, spokesman for The Wireless Association, the leading cell phone trade group. "What about the young parents whose baby-sitter is trying to call them, or the brain surgeon who needs notification of emergency surgery? These calls need to get through." <http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060301-015410-7150r> Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com> ----- 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

[Dewayne-Net] New paint blocks out cell phone signals
by Dewayne Hendricks 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

[Note: This item comes from reader Fred Maia. DLH]

1 0

AT&T Forwards ALL Internet Traffic Into NSA Says EFF
by Suzanne Johnson 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20060406031301790/print > EFF's evidence regarding AT&T's dragnet surveillance of its >networks includes a declaration by Mark Klein, a retired AT&T >telecommunications technician, and several internal AT&T documents. >This evidence was bolstered and explained by the expert opinion of >J. Scott Marcus, who served as Senior Technical Advisor for >Internet Technology to the Federal Communications Commission from >July 2001 until July 2005. > ------------------------------------- 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] AT&T Forwards ALL Internet Traffic Into NSA Says EFF
by David Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Begin forwarded message:

1 0

Re: PeerPoint Discussion - please don't use for other topics
by Miles Fidelman 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Actually, I think both comments are partially on the mark, and partially off the mark. We HAVE had peer-to-peer applications, of various sorts, for years. USENET comes to mind (I can't think of very much that any centralized social networks do that USENET news wasn't doing years ago. And at one point, someone did a very nice implementation of USENET on top of a distributed hash table). The failure of USENET has a lot more do to with not finding a viable solution to spam than anything else. Currently, distributed CVS systems (notably GIT) are a peer-to-peer application that's very successful. And then there's torrent. Re. Wikipedia and Linux: Both build on rather rich ecosystems of prior art, and development communities. Wikis came first, in various flavors, wikipedia. The world wide web virtual library predated wikipedia by decades. It took a lot of experimentation, plus vision and drive before wikipedia coalesced. Linux builds on the legacy of Unix and lets not forget all the stuff done by Stallman and the FSF (e.g, all the gnu tools and gnu userspace without which Linux would be useless). The problem with Poor Richard's proposal is severalfold: 1. lack of specificity - "let's build a P2P application suite" is a pretty content free statement - the PeerPoint "specification" really isn't anything resembling much of a specification 2. lack of vision - Ted Nelson's "Dream Machine's" book and Xanadu concept never really led to any widely used code, but they sure inspired a lot of people - precisely because Nelson laid out a vision of new capabilities -- other people went on to implement some of those ideas 3. lack of understanding about how technology evolves - open source or not - it involves an ecosystem and a process of incremental development, punctuated by flashes of insight 4. lack of anything motivating - is there really that much dissatisfaction with FaceBook? I mean, an awful lot of people use it, and there are alternatives for old reprobates like me who find FaceBook pretty insipid and useless (except for keeping track of my kid). For real work, email lists have been around an awfully long time, and don't seem to be going away anytime soon. The folks who REALLY worry about privacy/secrecy are using VPNs, encryption, darknets, etc. "Let's build an application suite" is a mantra that leads to things like MS Office. "Let's build an open source application suite" leads to OpenOffice and LibreOffice - which are essentially not-as-good imitations of MS Office. I simply don't see anything in the PeerPoint proposal that goes beyond "let's do x, y, and z, but let's do it peer-to-peer." Now if Poor Richard were to start developing stuff, that actually did useful and interesting things, I expect it would attract a community. But just saying "I think people should do <this>," where <this> is generally uninspired and uninteresting, is not a recipe for anything. </end rant> Paul Hughes wrote: > Mark, > > Wikipedia and Linux are two prime examples of substantive creations greater than Poor Richard's proposal that were done almost entirely by volunteers with no desire for compensation other than the joy of creating something awesome. > > I believe the time is ripe for PeerPoint or something equivalent. In fact it's long overdue. Because of the growing dissatisfaction with Facebook, and efforts to control and censor the net, there are more people wanting, and willing to build something like this than ever before. > > Paul > > > > On Jun 18, 2012, at 20:15, Mark Janssen-Rosenbluth <dreamingforward(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Richard, there is very little such application suites on the "drawing board" because we're way ahead of you. These conversations have been going on for over a decade. You're excited to get started, so you start afresh, but many of us have heard it all before. That there isn't something more by now is a difficult fact to explain. But probably the biggest reason is that after the litigation over p2p file-sharing and such, no one (with financial resources or political clout) has taken the "leap of faith" to "get it done". Such a comprehensive and radical project isn't that far from the process that created the protocols of the whole Internet to begin with... and you know how many years and millions that took.... >> >> So, if you want this to happen, I suggest you solve the political and/or financing problem.... don't go rei-inventing the wheel. >> >> mark j -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra ----- 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

[liberationtech] Pakistan: PTAbs alleged persistent pursuit of a URL filtration and blocking system is not acceptable
by Sana Saleem 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Hi all, Sharing this with caution. Since the liberationtech community played a crucial role in working with Pakistani civil society in pressuring the Pakistan Government to back out of the URL Filtration System. *Please note we are following up on the situation, moving with caution, but since a court case is involved the statement has been issued in light of legal requirements. Notices have been issued to PTA, Ministry of IT and the Government. * Statement Link (See here)<http://bolobhi.org/press-release-public-statements/press-releases/ptas-alle…> *Please note that this is an unconfirmed report but from a reliable source, we are following the situation and will be publishing confirmed reports<http://bolobhi.org/> immediately. * *Karachi 20th June 2012:* We received information from a reliable source that Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) issued a notification to other government departments announcing the installation of a filtering system. This has in turn been sent to some IT companies. As citizens concerned about internet freedom and free flow of information, this unconfirmed news is of grave concern to us. With great caution, we would like to share an update on this situation: The exact words in the email are pasted below. b Please note that PTA has deployed an automatic filtering system and is directly blocking sites deemed as disseminating objectionable content. Our upstream providers are no longer managing this process. We regret any inconvenience this may have caused you.b The content in the email suggests that the ISPs will no longer be responsible for blocking websites and that the PTA will now be able to block sites at will. The content in the email suggests that the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will no longer be responsible for blocking websites and that the PTA will now be able to block sites at will. *We are currently working in to verifying this news from various other sources. We are in communication with government officials who have committed to update us on the issue. We issue this statement with caution.* As a reminder: On the 17th of April 2012, seven individuals* through their advocates Haider Waheed and Basil Nabi Malik, petitioned the High Court of Sindh at Karachi challenging the arbitrary and random acts of the PTA in blocking/censoring and restricting access to various websites in violation of the fundamental rights of the owners of the websites/online forums as well as the public at large, and without affording the aggrieved persons an opportunity of being heard or due notice. The Honorable High Court of Sindh issued notice to the Federation of Pakistan, through the Secretary, Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunication, and the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, through its Chairman, and furthermore ordered the PTA said not to block any website other than in accordance with the provisions of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996. A letter to the PTA has already been issued demanding a clarification on the issue and we would like to reassert that any steps by the PTA to pursue ad hoc blocking will be a violation of the court stay order. If true, this is a set-back to the free-flow of information and internet freedom in Pakistan. Despite the Ministry of IT making a commitment to Bushra Gohar, Member of National Assembly,the PTAbs persistent pursuit of a URL filtration and blocking system is extremely disappointing and shows disregard for democratic values. *Bolo Bhi means bSpeak upb, we are an organization with focus on advocacy, policy and research. Our focus areas <http://areas/>include human rights with focus on gender and minority rights, internet freedom and privacy. We believe it is crucial to bridge the gap between rights advocates, policy makers, media and average citizens. Bridging the gap enables collective strength and concentrated focus on the areas that require attention. * _______________________________________________ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech(a)lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech ----- 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

[liberationtech] Tragic News: Aaron Swartz commits suicide
by Yosem Companys 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

This is a tragic loss and a terrible blow to the liberationtech community. Yosem http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N61/swartz.html Aaron Swartz commits suicide Web Update By Anne Cai NEWS EDITOR; UPDATED AT 2:15 A.M. 1/12/13 Computer activist Aaron H. Swartz committed suicide in New York City yesterday, Jan. 11, according to his uncle, Michael Wolf, in a comment to The Tech. Swartz was 26. b The tragic and heartbreaking information you received is, regrettably, true,b confirmed Swartzb attorney, Elliot R. Peters of Kecker and Van Nest, in an email to The Tech. Swartz was indicted in July 2011 by a federal grand jury for allegedly mass downloading documents from the JSTOR online journal archive with the intent to distribute them. He subsequently moved to Brooklyn, New York, where he then worked for Avaaz Foundation, a nonprofit b global web movement to bring people-powered politics to decision-making everywhere.b Swartz appeared in court on Sept. 24, 2012 and pleaded not guilty. The accomplished Swartz co-authored the now widely-used RSS 1.0 specification at age 14, was one of the three co-owners of the popular social news site Reddit, and completed a fellowship at Harvardbs Ethics Center Lab on Institutional Corruption. In 2010, he founded DemandProgress.org, a b campaign against the Internet censorship bills SOPA/PIPA.b -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech ----- 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