- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Who owns cypherpunks [RANT] (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Jim Ray wrote: > > > I'm sure John's quaking in his boots. Reread my campground analogy, and try > > to refute it. You can't. Go start your own list with no moderation. Go start > > a more moderated list than John's, like Perry's will be. Do whatever, but > > this moronic thread must end! I run several lists and have for quite a few years. In that time I have never censored any member. I have had similar instances as to Vulis and my responce has been and will continue to be. "This is your problem, I have no authority to prohibit membership or submissions of members of the list. If you wish to not see such submissions from some party then it is your responsibility to deal with it. In short, either unsubscribe or filter." > Ironic, isn't it? Jim says "this moronic thread *must* end", and yet, this very list > that is John's *private* property is filling up with rants about censorship. Tsk tsk. I never said any such thing. Please quit attributing comments to me which are untrue. > Maybe next time they'll make it more apparent at subscription time that there's no > assurance of free speech here! The fact that it is 'private property' is irrelevant to this issue. Most 'presses' are private property. Trying to change the subject won't work. As to making it clear at subscription time what the actual operating rules are is my EXACT point. In fact you are agreeing with my position. At the current time there are no indications at log on that this list is considered private property, that the operator reserves the right to edit or refuse submissions, etc. which is what makes it a 'public' list and what makes him legaly liable for the cencorship he has enacted without warning. I have been on this list for several years and at no point in that time have I agreed to anything which gives the operator of the list my permission to modify or refuse my original submissions. If he or a third party wishes to refer to them in part or in toto in their own submissions is fine. That is the whole point of the list. Jim Choate

1 0

Re: [rant] Re: Censorship on cypherpunks (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 20:42:46 -0500 (EST) > From: "Mark M." <markm(a)voicenet.com> > > This is why contracts are important. There is no contract, implied or > otherwise, to which John Gilmore is bound that forces him to protect everyone's > "right" to be subscribed to cpunks and post whatever they want to the list. The lack of an explicit contract detailing this is what makes it impossible for the operator of the list to enforce such actions. When I subscribed I gave the operator no permission to edit or otherwise control my submissions. I also gave no permission for such submissions to be considered property by any party other than myself. It is not possible to argue that my subscription implied such permission. When I subscribed to the cpunks list it was with the explicit intent of seeing a multiplicity of views, not those views which happen to be acceptable to the list operator. The fact that he chooses to host the list by paying its bills is irrelevant. If the operator wants to protect themselves legaly as well as ethicaly they should put a notice at time of subscription detailing exactly what editorial policies are active as well as sending a policy notification to all currently subscribed members. Jim Choate ps I never saw the post about the camp ground example. If the author would please forward me a copy I would be happy to critique it.

1 0

Small "Hard" Problems Wanted
by mpd＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Fellow C'Punks, In my quest to reduce NP-Completeness to NP-Not-So-Hard-Ness, I have just finished coding and debugging a very complicated algorithm which manages to solve circuit satisfiability problems of up to 1000 nodes in a few minutes and about half a meg of memory. It works directly from the connectivity information and the time required is not a function of the number of input bits. Circuit satisfiability problems, and other well known problems like Max P-Sat, are amongst the more useful canonically NP-Complete problems, since other problems map very nicely into them. The algorithm is currently in APL, and I am in the process of recoding it in C, after which I plan to test it on reduced round DES, full 16 round DES, and some RSA problems of various sizes. I already have C code to map RSA and n-round DES problems into an appropriate circuit satisfiability problem and generate appropriate input for the algorithm, so finishing up the C version is the only remaining step before these tests can begin. The current APL reference inplementation can still handle problems up to about 1000 nodes, which should include a lot of stuff for which exhaustive search would be intractable, even on supercomputers. Nothing I have so far fed the reference implementation has bombed it, and I would like to make sure it is perfect before the finely tuned C version is complete. So if anyone has a "hard" problem they are dying to solve, which maps into a circuit satisfiability problem that isn't over 1000 nodes, Email it to me and I will see if I can divine the answer. I will post any interesting results to the list, of course. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $

1 0

TRY THIS FOR FUN - $$payt~1.doc (0/1)
by markets＠mindspring.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

$$$EARN MONEY FAST AND LEGITIMATE!!!! Not a Chain Letter; No Implied Threats: That's what I like about it. OK, OK so here I am trying one of these programs, well I figured, why not, for the exposure of $5.00 what do I really have to lose. Heck, I've lost a great deal more than that just on a night's entertainment, not to mention what I spend on unnecessary snacks and beverages at work each day. So, the lists I have read really do speak about the great benefits of developing mailing lists. Why not give it a try as a hobby yourself and see where it gets you. The comments are quite clear and believable: Ryan Gaskins says: Not only does it work for me, it works for other folds as well. Markus Valppu says he made $57,883 in four weeks. Dave Manning claims he made $53,664 in the same amount of time. Dan Shepstone says it was only $17,000 for him. Do I know these folks? No, but when I read how they say they did it, it made sense to me. Enough sense that I'm taking a similar chance with $5 of my own money. Not a big chance, I admit -- but one with incredible potential, because $5 is all anyone ever invests in this system. Period. That's all Markus, Dave, or Dan invested, yet their $5 netted them tens of thousands of dollars each, in a safe, legal completely legitimate way. Here's how it works in 3 easy steps: Step 1 Invest your $5 by writing your name and address on five seperate pieces of paper along with the words: "PLEASE ADD ME TO YOUR MAILING LIST." (In this way, you're not just sending a dollar to someone; you're paying for a legitimate service). Fold a $1 bill, money order, or bank note inside each paper, and mail them by standard local mail/post to the following five addresses: 1. P.R. Corswandt Hubertusallee 6-8 D-14193 GERMANY 2. Stig Eriksen Stolshaugv. 24 N-5460 HUSNES NORWAY 3. T. Lavigne 19 Whisper Lane Milton, VT 05468 USA 4. R. Gaskins 1272 Great Neck Rd #220 Virginia Beach, VA 23454 USA 5. JUD 47 West Polk Street Suite #100-212 Chicago, IL 60605 USA Step 2 Now using any word processor program, open this document (or re-type it yourself) remove the top name from the list, and re-number. This way #2 becomes #1, #5 becomes #4 and so on. Put your name and address in as the fifth (#5) on the list. Step 3 Post the article to at least 250 newsgroups. There are at least 19000 newsgroups at any given moment in time. Try posting to as many newsgroups as you can. Remember the more groups you post to, the more people will see your article and send you cash! Step 4 you are now in business for yourself, and should start seeing returns within 7 to 14 days! Remember, the Internet is new and huge. It is hard to imagine not benefiting from this friendly exercise in this incredle rapidly growing market. Now here is how and why this system works: Out of every block of 250 posts made, expect 5 responses. Yes that right, only 5. You make $5.00 in cash, not checks or money orders, but real cash with your name at #5. Each additional person who sent you $1.00 now also makes 250 additional postings with your name at #4, 1000 postings. On average then, 50 people will send you $1.00 with your name at #4k,.... $50.00 in your pocket! Now these 50 new people will make 250 postings each with your name at #3 or 10,000 postings. Average return, 500 people = $500.00 they make 250 postings each with your name at #2 = 100,000 postings = 5,000 returns at $1.00 each $5,000.00 in cash! Finally, 5,000 people make 250 postings each with your name at #1 and you get a return of $60,000 before your name drops off the list. And that's only if everyone down the line makes only 250 postings each! Your total income for this one cycle is $55,000. >From time to time when you see your name is no longer on the list, you take the latest posting you can find and start all over again. The end result depends on you. You must follow through and re-post this article everywhere you can think of. The more postings you make the more cash ends up in your mailbox. It's too easy and too cheap to passup!!!! So thats it. Pretty simple sounding stuff, huh? But believe me, it works. there are millions of people surfing the net every day, all day, all over the world. And 100,000 new people get on the net every day. You know that, you've seen the stories in the paper. So, my friend, read and follow the simple instructions and play fair. That's the key. And that's all there is to it. print this out right now so you can refer back to this article easily. Try to keep an eye on all the postings you made to make sure everyone is playing fairly. You know where your name should be. If you're really not sure or still think this can't be for real, then don't do it. But please print this article and pass it along to someone you know who really needs the bucks, and see what happens. REMEBER.HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY. YOU DON'T NEED TO CHEAT THE BASIC IDEA TO MAKE THE BUCKS! gOOD LUCK TO ALL, AND PLEASE PLAY FAIR AND YOU WILL MAKE SOME REAL INSTANT FREE CASH! ***By the way, if you try to deceive people by posting the messages with your name in the list and not sending the bucks to people already included, you will nnot get much. Another fellow did this and only got about $150.00 (and that's after two months). Then he sent the 5 bills, people added him to thier lists, and in 4-5 weeks he dad over $10,000! TRY IT AND YOU'LL BE HAPPY111 WARNING: IT IS ILLEGAL TO USE THIS IDEA WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT DO YOU WANT TO SPEND 4-7 YEARS IN JAIL FOR MAIL FRAUD!!!????

1 0

Re: Pseudo-law on the list and libel (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > > >This opens up the potential, for example, for Tim May to sue the operator of > > >the Cypherpunks mailing list now for posts from users (even anonymous ones) > > >which defame or otherwise liable his character, reputation, or ability to > > >pursue income in his chosen field. In short the operators of the list > > >becomes publishers and distributors of the material. It is the legal > > >difference between a bookstore and a book publisher. > > There is a very distinct difference between ejecting disruptive influences > and conducting one's self as a publisher and distributer. Exactly. Because the list takes in submissions from ALL parties and then resubmits them to ALL SUBSCRIBED parties it qualifies as a publisher. The real issue here is that folks on the net want the protection of the 1st Amendment but they don't want the responsibility that goes along with it. This list qualifies as a press. As a result it has a responsibility relating to what it distributes. Vulis was unpopular he was not distruptive. At NO time did he interfere with the normal operation of the list software or prevent submissions or remailings. > > Pseudo-law on this list is really getting out of hand. > > We need more lawyers. That should replace the pseudo-law with real law. We need fewer lawyers and better laws. Most pseudo-law is practiced by lawyers. Jim Choate

3 2

Mailing list liability
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Note: Parts of the following are taken verbatim from (1) with some rewording on my part to make the material flow better. Cubby v Compuserve (1991) The court reasoned, "in essence an electronic, for profit library that carried a vast number of publications and collected usage and membership fees from its subscribers in return for access to the publications." The court further ruled that Compuserve had no more editorial control over Rumorville than "does a public library, book store, or newsstand, and it would be no more feasible for Compuserve to examine every publication it carries for potentialy defamatory statements than it would be for any other distributor to do so." The court also found, "A computerized database is the functional equivalent of a more traditional news vendor, and the inconsistent application of a lower standard of liability to an electronic news distributor such as Compuserve than that which is applied to a public library, a book store, or a newsstand would impose an undue burden on the free flow of information. Given the relevant First Amendment considerations, the appropriate standard of liability is whether it knew or had reason to know of the allegedly defamatory Rumorville statements." The court held that Compuserve was not liable because Compuserve was a "distributor" and not a "publisher." The court concluded that because Compuserve did not actively monitor the postings of the forum, it was a distributor. In summary, the court compared Compuserve to a bookstore selling the book rather than the publisher of the book. Cianci v New Times Publishing Co. (1980) "one who repeats or othewise republishes defamatory matter is subject to the liability as if he had originaly published it." Lerman v Chuckleberry Publishing, Inc. (1981) The court held that with respect to news vendors, book stores, and libraries are not liable if "vendors and distributors of defamatory publications are not liable if they neither know nor have reason to know of the defamation." Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy (1995) The critical issue in Prodigy was whether Prodigy exercised sufficient editorial control over its computer bulletin boards to render it a publisher with the same responsibilities as a newspaper or magazine. The court reasoned that there were two distinctions in this case sufficient to qualify Prodigy as a publisher. First, it held itself out to the public and its members as controlling the content of its computer bulletin boards. Second, Prodigy implimented this control through its automated software and established guidelines that board leaders were required to enforce. Prodigy was clearly making decisions as to content. Such decisions constitute editorial control. (1) ;login:, Oct. 1996, V21N5 pp27.

2 1

Another possible remailer attack?
by Steve Reid 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 12:58:42 -0800 >From: nobody(a)cypherpunks.ca (John Anonymous MacDonald) >Subject: Vulis on the remailers > Please, remailers, source block Vulis for a week. > Remailer Fan Suppose you operate an ISP and you suspect that one of your users (let's call him Dimitri) is using anonymous remailers to submit politically incorrect messages (under a pseudonym, or all with the same writing style) to Usenet, mailing lists, and a well-known phreak/hack publication. Also suppose that these public messages are appearing on a regular basis. You want to know if Dimitri is the person regularly posting these messages. So, you use your powers as ISP to block his access to all remailers. If the public messages suddenly stop then you can be reasonably certain that Dimitri was sending them. I expect this would work even against DC nets. The only solution I can think of is to have an account with multiple ISPs and always send mail from more than one account. This probably wouldn't offer much protection against TLAs (NSA, CIA, FBI, MCI, AT&T ;) who may be able to block traffic no matter where it comes from. Comments?

3 2

Apartment complex burnt down... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 20:53:02 -0800 > From: nobody(a)cypherpunks.ca (John Anonymous MacDonald) > > Suppose Bob lives in an apartment complex. By accident the whole building > burns down. > > Bob manages to escape, but all his papers, including passport, IDs, > credit cards, acount numbers, etc etc gets destroyed. > > What can Bob do? Would the government help him? > > It seems like he'd be in a really unfavorable position... I was there 2 years ago. The Red Cross is about the only group you can count on other than family, friends and a church (if you happen to belong to one). Getting another drivers license was a easy operation. Head down to the local DPS office and request a replacement card for a lost license. The titles and such for property and auto were tedious but not impossible. I didn't need to show anything other than my drivers license and pay the requisite fees to obtain new copies of the deeds. In general the governmental types of documents and such were easy to replace. I personaly had all the necessary copies of the documents I needed within a month or so. The personal items were impossible to replace and caused the most emotional turmoil. In many parts of the country the Red Cross is delepeted both in operating funds and volunteers. If you can, please consider giving them your support. I personaly didn't use them but both my roomies did. Jim Choate

1 0

Black markets vs. cryptoanarchy
by Mike Ingle 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cryptoanarchy will have arrived when you can openly _advertise_ these services and still stay in business indefinitely. Most of the things we talk about - even Jim Bell's assassination market - already exist, but they cannot be advertised. You have to go looking for them, at some risk to both buyer and seller. If the seller is visible enough for you to find him, he is visible enough to get caught. For example, there is plenty of 'pirate' material on the net, but it tends to go away as soon as the addresses become well-known. Cryptoanarchy will be here when you can advertise yourself as a distributor of pirate software (or anything else you want to sell), do business with a publicly known contact address, and still not get caught. 'Black markets' exist due to the inability to do this. Currently the techniques of anonymity are limited to two: indirection for source anonymity and broadcast for recipient anonymity. We are more or less where crypto was before the invention of public key. You can gain security by spreading risk among multiple parties (key distributors for crypto, or remailers for anonymity) but you can't 'make your own anonymity' like you can make your own security with public key crypto. A theoretical discovery is needed particularly in the area of recipient anonymity. Good sender anonymity and weak recipient anonymity leads to 'hit and run' behavior such as spamming email and newsgroups, but not to anonymous markets. Mike > >Crypto-anarchy benefits the poor more than the rich. The underlings > >of society are going to love it. > > In fact, they basically already practice it. Not with computers, of course, > but in terms of not reporting cash income, not reporting tips, engaging in > barter work with others, and gambling in various non-sanctioned markets. > > (Numbers games and sports betting are huge markets. Interestingly, such > markets also validate much of what we say about "reputations." After all, > when was the last time you heard about a bookie being sued in court for not > paying up? And private justice is administered, as welshers are disposed of > directly, without a long, expensive trial. Nearly everything in "crypto > anarchy" has direct parallels in "underworld and black markets." Some say > they are really the same thing. Perhaps.) > > --Tim May

9 12

Re: Information [for new PGP user]
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adamsc wrote: > On Thu, 07 Nov 1996 07:08:52 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: > >> >> > I'm a new Cyberpunk! > >> Probably wearing a set of Ono-Sendai eyeballs.... > >> >> > Last, I would like to know once and for all, is PGP compromised, is > >> >> > there a back door, and have we been fooled by NSA to believe it's secure? > >> You can read and compile the source code yourself. > >Really? All 60,000 or so lines, including all 'includes' or attachments? > >I'll bet you can't find 10 out of 1,000 users who have read the total source, > >let alone comprehended and validated it. > That's not necessary - it's the fact that it's possible that matters; most > of us are content to trust the various people who actually have. However, > I'd probably be inclined to look into it seriously if I was going to use it > on anything incriminating or potentially linked to my checkbook... My main point, which is really difficult to make, since software issues are so complex today, is that I've been involved with projects on a similar scale as PGP, where several programmers contributed code to a particular executable program, and when this is the case (especially where the source is not obvious as would be data entry code and the like), it's just not practical for one person working alone, unpaid, to break the source down into manageable chunks and study it and make enough notes so that every portion of it is clearly understood and validated. People in the past have discussed 50 million line Fortran programs to set up jet training simulators and so forth, and by comparison a 60,000 line source in 'C' might look doable, as far as complete annotation is concerned. To illustrate the point, then, I recently had a chance to estimate the cost of converting a non-'C' program to 'C', which would result in a 'C' program of about 6,000 lines, or about 1/10 the size of PGP. My best guess was about 500 to 1,000 hours, and to analogize that to PGP, where I wouldn't be writing or converting code ostensibly, just annotating it, I would still guess 2,500 to 5,000 hours, if the job were done correctly and thoroughly. If the job is not practical/feasible, then IMO I can say it's not doable. OTOH, if some one or a handful of people wanted to make the source code of PGP really accessible to the masses (of programmers at least), they should start with a plan to make sure it's broken down into a heirarchy of functions so that: 1. No one function is too large (say, no more than 50 lines or so). 2. All functions use reasonably short variable names (ex: 'iTrapon'). 3. Variable names are consistent in capitalization. 4. Function names follow the heirarchy and are logically intuitive. 5. Constant and #define names follow a heirarchy as well. 6. Where a choice is possible between setting out a construct that (visually speaking) looks very complex and is difficult to follow, and making it simpler, take the simpler path.

1 0