- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Schelling Points, Rights, and Game Theory--Part II
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

tcmay(a)got.net wrote: >I believe the game-theoretic and evolutionary approaches, mixed in with >economics, offer the most solid grounding for the discussion of rights. I'll try keep my response brief, because I seem to swerve between didactic and sarcastic without being able to stop in between. As others have said, look where I'm pointing, not at what I'm pointing with. So here goes... Basically, in this view of rights and raising of children it would seem that a relativistic pragmatism prevails. Personally, I think that the two choices are either this relative pragmatism or an absolute morality. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Some implications of Tim's view is that all our rights are basically a transitory agreement between individuals. If at any time the "cost" of a right becomes too high for too many (e.g. free speech leading to X for some X), then it is quite possible that this "right" will be removed. The "losers" have no higher appeal process in this matter than that of trying to gain a different consensus. This may work while there is not a large power gap between any two individuals or groups, but as power shifts to fewer people and groups (economic, social, political, etc...) the "losers" may find that the lowest cost path is into some form of economic serfdom or slavery (e.g. McJobs). Ask Phil for other examples ;-). Unlike Rawls, we are not in a position of developing our laws in advance of determining our social standing. I personally believe that our ability to develop reasonable laws and social structures will persist only as long as the majority of us have the ability to "put ourselves in someone else's shoes" and do in practical terms what Rawls suggests in theoretical ones. As soon as those with power are not able to see a situation where they could become like those without power, there will cease to be motivation to maintain a "safety net" of rights or economic means to protect the "losers" of our society. James

1 0

Re: License Plates
by qut＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

One method of protest against License Plate invasion of privacy is to simply not use license plates. When I bought my car six years ago the front license plate was never drilled for license plate holes, so I simply took off the rear plate too, and in six months I only got two tickets for it, one for twenty dollars in Walnut Creek which I only had to pay, not needing to "fix the defect," and another on the Richmond Bridge, costing seventy six dollars because it was a fix it ticket which I didn't want to fix, and pulled over another time with only a warning. Not bad at all for California, has any one else practised this form of protest? I had to put the rear plate back on though, because I acquired a drinking problem and I didn't want to get busted for drunk driving. Now that I'm sober, and with worse threats concerning license plates, it's time to pull off that rear plate again! Doing it tonight, join me! -- Skip, OBC

1 0

Re: License Plates
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Or About 20 Aug 96, 18:02, Skip wrote: > and with worse threats concerning license plates, it's time to pull > off that rear plate again! Doing it tonight, join me! ALL RIGHT Skip!!! Personal protest is the way to go. Ross =========== Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

1 0

Edited Edupage, 18 Aug 1996
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"educom(a)educom.unc.edu" 18-AUG-1996 23:56:45.22 >***************************************************************** >Edupage, 18 August 1996. Edupage, a summary of news about information >technology, is provided three times a week as a service by Educom, >a Washington, D.C.-based consortium of leading colleges and universities >seeking to transform education through the use of information technology. >***************************************************************** Speaking of Net-in-Orbit (while distributed datahavens have their points, sometimes you'd prefer not to have a given chunk of data on your hard drive - even encrypted with a passphrase), what's the physical setup for rewriteable optical drives? Are there any methods of doing those that will work OK in orbit? >ECHOSTAR TO DELIVER DATA, TOO >EchoStar Communications has successfully completed a public test of the >technology it will use in cooperation with Intel Corp. and Comstream to >deliver data via satellite to subscribers. Transmission rates could be >several megabits per second, says EchoStar's director of program management, >who adds that the opportunity to download Web content at higher speeds is >attractive to people hampered by slow phone lines. "If the download could >be made quickly and it could be stashed on their hard drive, that might be >something they'd be interested in," he says. In the recent test, >subscribers who use EchoStar's system to receive video and audio content >were given cards to install in their PCs, enabling them to receive data as >well. (Broadcasting & Cable 12 Aug 96 p86) [...] >Edupage is written by John Gehl <gehl(a)educom.edu> & Suzanne Douglas ><douglas(a)educom.edu>. Voice: 404-371-1853, Fax: 404-371-8057. >Technical support is provided by Information Technology Services at the >University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. >*************************************************************** >Edupage ... is what you've just finished reading. To subscribe to Edupage: >send mail to: listproc(a)educom.unc.edu with the message: subscribe edupage >Charles Baudelaire (if your name is Charles Baudelaire; otherwise, >substitute your own name). ... To cancel, send a message to: >listproc(a)educom.unc.edu with the message: unsubscribe edupage. (If you >have subscription problems, send mail to manager(a)educom.unc.edu.)

1 0

Re: Hackers invade DOJ web site
by Frank Stuart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[...] Will Day (willday(a)rom.oit.gatech.edu) wrote: >I understand how it affects their claim for the security of escrowed >keys, but I'm afraid I don't follow the other argument. How would the >wide availability of strong encryption have helped prevent the breakin? >How would encryption in general prevent breakins? I'd love to use this >as an argument for strong encryption, but I don't see how it really >applies. Since we don't know how the intruders broke in, we can only speculate. I can think of several scenarios where cryptographic techniques could help. I can also think of several where they wouldn't. When you've only got 20 seconds to explain to a non-technical audience, I don't think it's dishonest to say that it might have prevented it. Off the top of my head, here are a couple examples: 1. It's possible that a DOJ employee logged in from a remote site while the intruders were snooping somewhere along the way. If the link had been encrypted, that would have made things much more difficult or impossible for the attackers. 2. Perhpas the intruders used IP spoofing and .rhosts to break in. If machines had to be cryptographically authenticated, a rsh from the wrong machine wouldn't work. I think my 20 seconds are up. :> | (Douglas) Hofstadter's Law: | It always takes longer than you expect, even Frank Stuart | when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.

2 1

Re: [NOISE] Airport legal question
by William Knowles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lucky, >I know that it is a violation of federal law to joke about explosives at >the X-ray machine. Would an "I love Explosives" sticker on carry-on >luggage violate any laws? Dunno, But you might get a kick out this from The Chicago Reader that published a list of the "bomb threats" made at O'Hare International airport a few weeks back. 7/18: "I have nothing other than the bomb I am going to put on the plane." 7/18: "I have a bomb that's going to go off in 30 seconds." 7/18: "You mean the bomb I have in my bag?" 7/19: "I don't have an ID, but I have a bomb." 7/21: "There's a bomb in the bag in my hand." 7/23: "I don't have a bomb in the bag." 7/23: "I got a bomb in my bag to kill everyone here." 7/24: "Well no, I left my pipe bomb at home." 7/25: "The one that looks like [there's] a bomb in it." 7/26: "I have a bomb in my bag. Boom." 7/27: "Where should I put the bomb?" 7/27: "No, nothing but a bomb." 7/31: "Are you checking for bombs? I've got a bomb in my bag." 7/31: "I have some explosives to transport." 8/1: "It's not as if we were Swedish and here to blow up the airport." 8/2: Offender: "It's a bomb in the bag." Witness: "That's not funny." Offender: "I'm not playing." 8/3 "I have a bomb." -- William Knowles erehwon(a)c2.org -- William Knowles <erehwon(a)c2.org> PGP mail welcome & prefered / KeyID 1024/2C34BCF9 PGP Fingerprint 55 0C 78 3C C9 C4 44 DE 5A 3C B4 60 9C 00 FB BD Finger for public key -- Vote for Harry Browne in November -- http://www.HarryBrowne96.org

1 0

Re: Hackers invade DOJ web site
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:31 PM 8/20/96 -0500, Frank Stuart wrote: >Since we don't know how the intruders broke in, we can only speculate. I >can think of several scenarios where cryptographic techniques could help. >I can also think of several where they wouldn't. When you've only got 20 >seconds to explain to a non-technical audience, I don't think it's dishonest >to say that it might have prevented it. > >Off the top of my head, here are a couple examples: > > 1. It's possible that a DOJ employee logged in from a remote site while > the intruders were snooping somewhere along the way. If the link had > been encrypted, that would have made things much more difficult or > impossible for the attackers. > > 2. Perhpas the intruders used IP spoofing and .rhosts to break in. If > machines had to be cryptographically authenticated, a rsh from the > wrong machine wouldn't work. One of the best comments I have seen (from another list) was: "These are the people who want us to escrow our encryption keys with them and yet they can't protect their own web site." I think this can be used as a very valid example as to why they are untrustworthy to be in charge of keeping anything private and/or protected, let alone private encryption keys. --- | "Remember: You can't have BSDM without BSD. - alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com "| |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

1 0

Re: "Utilization Review"
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:01 PM 8/20/96 -0400, Alan Horowitz wrote: >If you want to convince the masses - or even fashion elites such as myself >- to forego recourse to voluntary risk sharing.... you have your work cut >out for you. The insurance companies have every reason to perform "Utilization Reviews", since only they have incentive to contain costs. Our medical plans tend to insure for routine medical care and as a result, give the insurance companies the data about our routine care. If they only paid for catastrophic illness and accident care, they would only have reason to have data on that care. Do you want to share the risk of routine medical care? Or do you just want to share the risk of catastrophic illnesses and accidents? Or do you want to keep it all private. What you pay for, you can keep private. What they pay for, they can review. Your choice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Cave ab homine unius lebri | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | [Beware the man of one | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | book] - Anonymous Latin | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

Re: [NOISE] Airport legal question
by nathan poznick 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Lucky Green wrote: > I know that it is a violation of federal law to joke about explosives at > the X-ray machine. Would an "I love Explosives" sticker on carry-on > luggage violate any laws? i'm not sure about any specific laws, but i know the airlines take *any* talk of explosives VERY seriously... a few years back, while i was in high school, i was on an airplane with about 15 other students, returning from an excursion... one of the other students said something to the effect of, "oh sure...yea, my cd player is really just a clever bomb in disguise.." one of the flight attendants overheard him say this, (to another student) and he was promptly taken to the front of the plane and restrained...they actually took his cd player apart to make sure there were no explosives in it...the only thing that stopped them from pressing criminal charges was the fact that all of the adult sponsor on the trip vouched for him and pleaded with the flight crew that he was just kidding... he got off with a SEVERE talking to and a cd player in less-than perfect condition... nate. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ Nathan Poznick ^ ^ <npoznick(a)harding.edu> ^ ^ http://www.harding.edu/~npoznick ^ ^ ^ ^ "640k should be enough for anybody." ^ ^ ^ ^ --Bill Gates, 1981-- ^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

1 0

Re: Spamming (Good or Bad?)
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Or About 20 Aug 96, 23:12, Rich Graves wrote: > > > So is mailbombing the motherfucker, or more productively, > > > virtually picketing his ISP until they kick him off for net > > > abuse > > > > That is the kind of self righteous crap that gives me the > > creeps!!! > > Good. That's called deterrence.* The market decides. > > >From your earlier message, though, describing the "spamming" you > >do, I > really don't see you as needing deterrence <SNIP> > indiscriminately. OTOH, if you really target your audience well, > especially if a human and not a bot is in charge of selecting > prospects, then I'd call that "cold calling," not "spamming." Well, that's just the way I look at it. But some people overreact... > Unsolicited email is moderately annoying, but I don't think it's > anything to complain about. I filter all mail from unknown addresses > anyway. > > * - The cool thing about this kind of deterrence is, since you're > only defending virtual turf, you can sabre-rattle to your heart's > content without worrying about having to actually follow through. I do enjoy a little of that from time to time. Ross =========== Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

1 0