- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Killing those who need killing
by Mix 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May wrote: >Don't any of you get any ideas here, but in California it is >ridiculously easy to get someone committed for a 72-hour observation >period. All one has to do is convince one of the various agencies >that a person is a possible danger to himself or to others.... >...Worst of all, the mere fact of having been committed, regardless >of the eventual outcome, can mean a complete loss of rights to own a >handgun, rifle, or shotgun for a long period (10 years, I >think). Failure to let the Thought Police in for a look around one's >home is almost ipso facto grounds for committment. Use of remailers lessens this and other risks. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFqgYZaWtjSmRH/5AQHYBwf9HcENXxw+SD3wt3yRFLBmyFHmqNCuQP30 5JdzgfUuwAHBD2D/JkXm3X99vBFcoeouysgCj79yDYdzQeIWHAamO1pdlCcmgcVz 0vBGz7izWgaMioXQAIPU5cBpaEfac5yOleetKQwViq0cnV49aA309qOzi4QzufAD YJuV+hURnfmHPNrOmXRtlbPRzCwogo4pIZu8Vs5klxwSyRL/1G8KLzDERnSE4bFg +0D9MDV9lFmaaqiA2XRYZSEgsFyD3BKc2kgWceugnQl3UtSvLdXncoQPAJbcpE7Y OPIV2YS9S2qNTprtiTiMLV1dsZ+5QeXZoUKEztVRJXwGMYNLMQKqJg== =C2Wi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

REQUESTING PERMISSION
by obwoods＠arias.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Let Your COMPUTER Pay Your Mortgage and Car Payments Every Month! Greetings: If you're looking for a way to earn additional income then I would like your permission to update you on a revolutionary software that can transform your computer into a 21st Century computer-based business. This is NOT an MLM or "chain-letter"-type software, but rather a legitimate business you can run -- either on or off the Internet. If youre interested in learning more about this incredible software and would like me to send you some "FREE" information please hit reply and type in "send info." I'll send it a.s.a.p. Thanks for your time and have a great day! Roger

1 0

re: Hlep
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Q. How many cypherpunks does it take to change a light bulb ? A. %5-3E,*5$%"4TE:10IA8F-D969G:6ML;6YP<7)S='5W.GA!0D-&

1 0

XXX Live Sex!!!
by pafeze55＠mandex.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The PINK PUSSY CLUB is the HOTTEST site for XXX Live Girl SEX SHOWS!!! We've got it all !!! It's always FREE!!! * A Massive Selection of XXX LIVE GIRLS!!!! * FREE Porn Star Pics!!! *REAL LIVE SEX !!! * FREE Erotic Stories!!! * Personals & Dating Services * Adult Toys & Clothing * Men's Pics, Gay, Lesbian & Bi-Sexuals * Adult Videos, CD-ROMS and much, much more!!! We update daily to bring you the hottest and newest XXX SEX ! Submit your adult link for FREE! http://www.pinkpussyclub.com AOL Click Here You must be 21 to use our service. If you take offense to this email & wish to be taken off our list simply email us at: pussycat(a)pinkpussyclub.com We apologize for any inconvience. 5«

1 0

PGPsdk is out, but not for free
by phelix＠vallnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

First, PGPsdk has been released: http://www.pgp.com/sdk/ The bad news: the licensing fees are so high that there will be no freeware or shareware applications using it. Here's an example of the licensing: License Plan #1 Authentication, Encryption/Decryption, PGP/MIME, Key Management: $25,000 advance on royalties + 2% of product revenues (minimum $1 per client and $35 per server) Add Certificate Server Integration: $5,000 advance on royalties Support/Upgrades (includes email support by a trained developer support technician) $1,500 per year + 15% of royalty payments Oh well, back to hacking an interface to PGPtray. -- Phelix

1 0

No Subject
by lurker＠ottoman.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

October 30, 1997 Web posted at: 9:34 p.m. EST (0234 GMT) ROBY, Illinois (CNN) -- Shirley A. Allen, a mentally disturbed woman who held police off for 39 days with a shotgun and entertained herself by listening to public radio, was captured Thursday and taken to a hospital. "The good news is she's safe," said Terrance Gainer, Illinois state police director. "The great news is nobody got seriously hurt or killed." The standoff ended when Allen ventured out on the deck behind her home to throw away food and water left for her by the police. On her third trip, she stooped to cut a wire attached to a pail in which a police camera was hidden. A trooper fired six rubber bullets at her, striking her two or three times and knocking her to the deck, where she was captured. Gainer said that Allen, who wore a full camouflage suit padded with a pillow and magazines, was examined at a hospital and reported to be in good condition was feisty enough after the ordeal to scold police for their tactics during the standoff. Gainer said she is still in custody and will undergo a psychiatric examination. "I think she's probably as relieved right now as we are that this is over," said Allen's brother, Byron Dugger, who talked with her after she was captured. Gainer said Allen asked Dugger to open his mouth to prove he wasn't someone wearing a mask that looked like him. 'They have zapped my head with radar' The standoff in this small central Illinois town began September 22 when Allen, 51, brandished a shotgun as her brother and sheriff's deputies tried to take her in for a court-ordered evaluation. Allen's relatives were concerned because she had become increasingly depressed and paranoid since her husband died of pancreatic cancer in 1989. More recently, she had refused to see or talk to her brother or her 86-year-old mother. In a letter to her mother in May 1996, Allen wrote, "They have zapped my head with radar. I have swelling and inflammation of the brain." She did not say who "they" were, but when police offered her water after she was captured, she said "the helicopters" told her not to drink it. There were no helicopters in sight, but she finally drank the water after troopers drank some to prove it wasn't poisoned. She told them she hadn't eaten or had anything to drink in three days. Allen also talked to her daughter, Kate Waddell, after she was captured. "But she wasn't quite sure it was Mrs. Waddell," Gainer said. Allen's case attracted the sympathy of many neighbors and became a rallying point for some who called it "Roby Ridge," likening it to shootouts at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and Waco, Texas, as an example of overzealous law enforcement. Standoff cost taxpayers about $1 million Others questioned the expense of the standoff. Gainer tackled that one head-on at a news conference Thursday, saying it was about $15,000 a day. He estimated the total cost of the operation at $750,000 to $1 million. Obviously relieved that Allen was taken alive, an unapologetic Gainer said, "But I don't think Mrs. Shirley Allen is worth a cent less than that." Police tried to get Allen out of her green frame farmhouse with tear gas, pepper spray and music. They also tried to coax her out with a visit from her favorite stepdaughter. This week, they began giving her food and restored her power, which had been shut off earlier, in a goodwill gesture they hoped would calm her down. Allen had fought off tear gas by smearing her face with petroleum jelly and withstood beanbag bullets by wearing heavy layers of clothing. She apparently slept in a sleeping bag in the living room -- the room where her husband died -- and had two transistor radios with earplugs. Gainer said the radios were tuned to a local public radio station. Protesters gathered daily to support her and criticized the police. 'Mrs. Allen is where she needs to be' "The good feeling is it's over for her. The bad feeling is how she's going to be trapped after this is over with," said John Powers, a neighbor and one of the protesters. "We don't know if they'll treat her as a person who is sane or as a person who tried to shoot their dog." Although Allen fired at state troopers and wounded a police dog sent into her home Sunday, "it would serve no useful purpose to charge her," Gainer said. "Given what we have known from Day 1, Mrs. Allen is where she needs to be right now." Reporter Lisa Price and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

1 0

Re: apropos list talk and our culture
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I will admit to a guilty pleasure: the opening scene, where the BATF agent >gets shot in the face, was delicious. It is often said that American TV is utter rubbish, but surely this would be the saving grace of such a programme. I too experienced such an effect a few days ago, when exiting a stretch of dual-carriageway I saw a car accident up ahead, I slowed down to see what had happened and saw a police motorcycle crushed under a car`s wheels, and the badly injured officer being stretchered away to an ambulance, a grin spread accross my face and I started laughing. A fine sight. Of course this story, which, since it involves the injury (and, I sincerely hope, eventual death) of a jackbooted thug, has a sad side to it, The police bikes were being riden unsafely and without any regard for other motorists (they were in a convoy of about 30 bikes presumably guarding some statist motherfucker), but I would lay money that the driver who was hit by the cop bike is blamed and prosecuted for the accident. Paul Bradley, currently in limbo between accounts but always reachable at paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul Bradley paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk SMS: +44 (0)410933621 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

Re: Technology 'secures' gunfire [CNN]
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jonathan Wienke wrote: > At 09:06 PM 10/31/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: > >> Now police have an electronic witness that can provide similar > >> assistance: a device called SECURES that pinpoints the time and > >> location of gunshots. > In order for this system to be worth anything, it would have to be able to: ... > 3. Monitor conversations throughout the coverage area. A suspicious sound > preceded by a male voice saying "Give me your money, bitch" would be much > more interesting than one preceded by a revving engine. This would have > the added benefits of allowing LEO's to track fugitives via the sound of > their footsteps, their breathing, vehicle engine sounds, etc., as well as > gathering voiceprint data from crimes in progress. > > I think point 3 is the scariest. A properly designed system could do > voiceprint analysis of almost every word spoken in public, tie the > conversations to the identities of the speakers, and archive the time, > location, content and participants of every spoken conversation for long > periods of time in a database that could be searched by keyword, speaker > identity, time, and/or location. The following searches could be done: > > 1. "I want a list of everyone who uttered the words 'buy' and 'crack' in > the same sentence between 2100 and 0330 hours within 500 feet of 123 Maple > Drive between August 7 and December 5." > > 2. "I want a list of all participants in conversations with Citizen-Unit > 754-35-9710 which included the phrase 'BATF agent' in the last 6 months. > > 3. "I want a map of Citizen-Unit 754-35-9710's movements for the last 2 > weeks." ... Jonathan has hit on a point which illustrates the danger of the surveillance technologies that are _already_ in place, vis a vis, the Internet. Something lost in the euphoria over the citizen's radical new ability to access information: Yahoo Search--"Posts by _me_." is that the same technolgy, and more, is at the fingertips of the proverbial 4 Horsemen AND (now for the _really_ bad news) at the fingertips of "John Law, the Citizen's Friend." Sadly, "garbage in--garbage out" _has_ always, and _will_ always, result(ed) in such inanities as Drug Counselors being 'rated' at the same level as Drug Dealers when the computer spits out the results of a badly structured "search for the _bad_guys_." Naturally, when the police mistakenly kick in the door of a Drug Counselor, it is always a 'regretable tragedy' when they shoot holes in the ten year old boy in the hallway who is holding an over-ripe banana which 'looked like a weapon.' (Almost a true life example, told to me by a friend who left her career in law enforcement because she was still in possession of a conscience which was capable of recognizing that children killed by those who are 'just following orders' are just as dead as the children killed by those who are 'out of control.') {The person in question 'pulled' her shot at the last moment, upon realizing she was about to murder a child with a banana. Because the banana "could have been a weapon," an investigation was not required for an officer firing upon an unarmed citizen. I regard this lady as a wonderful example of someone who has held themself to a higher standard than their government regulators and their peers. What is a shame is that someone who _should_ be the type of person charged with protecting us had to leave the system because there is no future for those who choose sanity, logic and humanity over 'following orders.'} If you stop to consider Jonathan's examples of (paraphrased), "give me the names of every citizen in location 'A' at time 'B' who has used the word 'normal' in an email in the last ten years, etc., etc." in light of Internet search engine capabilities being extended to such technologies as 'citizen physical location monitoring', 'voice recognition', 'DNA pattern analysis' (e.g. heriditary potential for violence, etc.), then the future may be very scary, indeed. Think about this: "Ladies and gentleman of the jury, the person who is reading this post is the 'only' individual, out of over 20 million processed by the Never Wrong Criminal Identification Compter System, who is in the post reader's general location, today, has completed their high school education and has a family member who has committed murder in the last five generations." (What? You claim you are not the _only_ person in New York City, with a high school education. Nice try, pal, but the computer is never wrong.) "Although no murder has been committed yet, statistics show that someone in that area will be, within the next two days, so I ask that you return a verdict of 'Guilty of murder in the first degree' and we will pick up and execute the reader of this post as soon as a body turns up." ...in light of _this_: A citizen was found guilty of murder by a jury, based on the slim eyewitness testimony of a passerby who caught a fleeting glimpse of the murderer, despite testimony from over a dozen people that the defendant was, at the time of the murder, attending a wedding thousands of miles away. Some of those giving testimony did not even know the man prior to meeting him at the wedding, and were in no way related to the man, but the jury was still swayed by the prosecutor's claim that this wide variety of law-abiding, average citizens were lying to try and protect the defendant. Do you have a great-great-grandfather who committed murder? Then you are, by heridity, a potential murderer. It's in your blood! This is '10 points against' you. All of the kindness you have don in your life does not count in your favor, because any fool can see that it was done in an attempt to trick the jury. > The Big Brother potential of such a system should be obvious. What is > really scary is that such a system could be built mostly with currently > existing hardware, and at most a few man-years of software development. If > each node in the network performs its own speech to text conversion and > archiving, and coordinates with a central voiceprint ID server, (which > could also provide the sync signal that the nodes would use to > cross-reference between nodes to locate sounds) each node could consist of > a Pentium 200 with some specialized audio signal processing cards and 15-20 > GB of storage. The only really new thing required would be an .AVI-style > format for storing MPEG audio, a text transcript of said audio (which would > need to include keywords for gunshots, passing vehicles, and other events > of interest), and location coordinates (updated on a second to second > basis) which could be indexed for reasonably efficient searching. Of course, Jonathan is a raving lunatic for suggesting these outlandish possibilities, much like the mentally unstable people who history records as believing that one day people would be able to send electromagnetic waves through the atmosphere and have their images and voices appear on machines in distant places. Seriously, history has shown that any technology capable of being used for great evil _will_ be used for great evil. The reason that technology radically increases the ante in the game between good and evil is that if one 'evil' person is in control of technology that ten million 'good' people do not have access to, then the basic humanity or inhumanity of humankind, in general, is really not an important part of the equation which will determine the future. (I challenge all other cypherpunks to a fistfight, the only rule being that I can use an Uzi, and you can't.) Remember...when all is said and done, my dad was an optomist. George Orwelle Jr.

1 0

Re: democracy?! (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 22:06:03 GMT > From: Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> > Subject: Re: democracy?! > > Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> writes: > > What is a reasonable summary? Reasonable to who? What 'lot' of > > democracies? > > This is getting kind of repetitive. I agree, I keep asking for your examples and proof and you keep avoiding providing them. You should consider being a politician or a lawyer. It's a real pity you can't seem to approach this discussion in good faith and with a sense of open analysis. > Perhaps you could provide a > counter example to disprove my claim that democracies result in more > petty privacy and freedom invasive laws than would be the case with a > pure market anarchy Pure market anarchy? What the hell is a pure market? I know what a free market is. Define it first. Explain how it, without an explicit bill of rights, will protect my rights? Explain how we don't end up with a Microsoft that owns everything which effectively reduces to a commercial communism? Where are my 'exit' choices then? What in the world would motivate such an entity to provide me with the resources to be a direct competitor, something clearly not in its best interest for long-term survival? How will others learn the technology and its applications outside the purvue of these economic regulatory entities. The unlimited expansion of the rail-roads in the 1800's is a excellent simili for comparison for both what such a system would be like as well as the major problems it *doesn't* address. Taminy Hall ring any bells? There was a free market political system if there ever was one; pay me and I'll do it for you, don't and you can freeze in hell. A more modern example is the history of the telecommunications companies which even after being broken up have now re-combined so that we in effect only have 3 domestic tel-comm providers, and they are discussing how to combine their resources. Further explain why such a system will guarantee that my views will at least be addressed at some level and not relegated a priori to a trash-heap because it goes against the market analysis of some bunch of bean-counters? Who do I go to for resolution of claims against these entities, the self-same entities? You call that justice, equality, or even representation? Explain why and how such a economic based system will guarantee my right to free speech or even to run a small business which I currently do when it is clear that I am in open competition with the very entities which provide me the resources to make the money? What is the economic motivation for the resource controlling entities to support my freedoms when it reduces their income? Explain how your system prevents economic black-balling? Another implication is that we will see more of the sort of business stategies implimented by PGP Inc. (for example) where they want a percentage of your income *without* accepting a percentage of the risk, economic tyrany is tyrany just the same. What recourse do I have if the monopolies which arise in such a system decide that the services or resources I need won't be provided? Am I then supposed to just calmly accept becoming some prole for some zaibatsu? What happens when those monopolies decide that if they work together they can further streamline the market, and my going to church or taking a vacation goes against those business requirements? It sounds like you are supporting Hirshleifer who says: "The mere fact of low income under anarchy... of itself provides no clear indication as to what is likely to happen next." [Personly, Hirshleifer is an idiot who apparently doesn't hang out on the wrong side of the tracks and therefore has no clue as to what motivates the poor or stupid.] Which in effect breaks down into one of two results for individuals (which all free market anarchists admit openly) who don't have sufficient income to buy their indipendance and their say: 1. they devote a great deal of effort to fighting to gain control over resources. or 2. they capitulate to some other party and turn over their resources for food and shelter. History would argue that people will accept neither of these as a solution to day-to-day living. Economists should stay out of politics. It's one of the reasons that at no point in either the Declaration of Indipendance or the Constitution that businesses are given rights are even given consideration except in regards of taxation of inter-state commerce. People should have seperation of government and religion and that includes the worship of wealth. > (perhaps old Iceland would be a suitable anarchy > to consider as a comparison). If it's so damn good how come it doesn't exist anymore? If it provided such a superior governmental system providing the maximum return on investment why did it go away? Why did they instead elect to go with a king? Futher, explain how such an anarchic system can be expanded without demonstrating the exact same sorts of scaling problems consensual democracies such as ancient Greek ran into? It's one thing to rule a few 10's of thousands of people who are related, share world-models and have limited resources and quite another to rule 4+ Billion people who speak hundreds if not thousands of languages and concommittent cultural beliefs? > Do you have a democracy in mind which > doesn't result in lots thought crimes and other "crimes" which are so > far removed from normal free market schelling points. It's just a > natural tendency of a democracy. Thought crimes and such are not a result of any political system but a result of the psychology of people. Please be so kind as to demonstrate (along with my previous questions I am still waiting on) how a political system effects the basic psychological development of the participants. Further, explain how the belief in the resolving power of money is any different than the resolving power of Buddha? You seem to be claiming that if we pray to the all mighty dollar all will be right with the world. > > > But they do share a characteristic: > > > distortions of free market in the form of voting for theft and > > > redistribution of other peoples money leading to annoying government > > > micro-management, and general do-gooder busy-body-ness, and the many > > > laws on thought crimes. > > > > Again, demostrate your assertion(s). > > > > Who? What? When? Where? Why? How? > > Who? What? Current democracices. When? Now. Why? Market > distortion. How? Politicians brokering legalised mass theft and > market distortion for game theoretic reasons. You seriously expect any reasonable person to be satisfied with such a side-step? And in case you hadn't realized it, the entire concept of free-market is a result of those same game theories. Are you claiming that such free market based systems will abandon game theory when it clearly provides insight into how those free markets operate? > > > Your constitution says you can own and carry > > > guns; your politicians and law enforcement increasingly say that you > > > can not. Your response to my saying that is that _I_ don't understand > > > the constitution? > > > > No, my responce is prove your assertions. > > You prove your assertion: are you saying there are no gun controls in The simply fact that one has a constitution that guarantees certain rights is *not* a guarantee that others won't find those rights threatening and want to take them away (see Hirshleifer's two alternatives above). And your assertion is that if we go to a free market anarchy then we no longer have to worry about anyone telling us what we can and can't do? Please be so kind as to demonstrate why a free market anarchy will prohibit monopolistic organizations who would be just as threatened by armed individuals as any other centralized organization? > > Explain to me why you believe these are valid views > > because they are a statement of readily observable reality? Where do I observe them? Give examples. Whose reality? Are you seriously claiming that there is one absolute reality? > > What you did say was that back in the old days people ran around > > killing those who bothered them. Which isn't true either. > > That bit was a statement of a belief that few people would be inclined > to invade someones privacy and attempt to impose sanctions for what > they viewed as thought crimes. It takes governments or religions to > do this kind of thing, individuals aren't likely to Governments and religions *ARE* people. There are times where I think you have said the stupidist thing possible and then you keep typing. Individuals are the ones who killed the Jews, put pepper spray in the eyes of demonstrators, and just about everything else that gets done. > > > The point was there were way less laws, and few were telling their > > > neighbours what they could think. > > > > Really? What was the law count say in 1865 versus 1965? 1897 v 1997? > > Demonstrate your point. > > I say: there were less laws in 1897 US than 1997 US. > > Tell me: do you refute that claim? I don't know, never looked at the numbers *AND* it isn't my job to refute it. *IT IS* your job to prove it since it is *YOUR* claim and apparently has some relevance to your thesis' validity. The number of laws at any given time is irrelevant and immaterial to my position (nice attempt at a straw man). It is plain stupidity to make claims and not have a clue as to the reality. I shure as hell won't be asking people to put their lives in my hands unless I could address such issues in a manner that they would feel comfortable with. Gut feelings are almost always wrong. The mere fact that you feel that we should take such claims at face value is a clear indication of what kind of worth you place in others. You believe yourself to be an angel apparently. Oh, and for the record. Studies of deaths during the 1800's indicate that the vast majority were accidental self-inflicted gunshot wounds, far more than the Indians or other 3rd parties inflicted combined. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

4 3

Call for Papers - 3rd USENIX Electronic Commerce Workshop
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Sender: treese(a)mail-60.OpenMarket.com Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 23:07:02 -0500 To: dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu From: Win Treese <treese(a)openmarket.com> Subject: Call for Papers - 3rd USENIX Electronic Commerce Workshop Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: bounce-dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Win Treese <treese(a)openmarket.com> >From: ec-mailing-owner(a)usenix.ORG >Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 21:24:01 -0700 (PDT) >Reply-To: ec-mailing-request(a)usenix.ORG >Subject: Call for Papers - 3rd USENIX Electronic Commerce Workshop >Apparently-To: <treese(a)openmarket.com> > >Dear Colleagues, > >Electronic Commerce is a rapidly growing area with global economic >implications. I'm excited to be able to say that we're putting >together the Third USENIX Workshop on Electronic Commerce, and I >invite your participation. This vital inter-disciplinary field >thrives from a cross pollenation of ideas and techniques from many >areas, and this workshop will be a great opportunity for you to >present your findings as well as learn about other latest results. > >So, mark your calendars! The workshop will take place from August 31 >to September 3, 1998, and paper submissions are due by March 6, 1998. >I hope to see you in Boston! > >Bennet Yee >Program Chair >ec98chair(a)usenix.org >================================================================= > >Announcement and Call for Participation > >3rd USENIX Workshop on Electronic Commerce >August 31-September 3, 1998 >Tremont Hotel, Boston, MA > >Sponsored by USENIX, the Advanced Computing Systems Association > >For more information about this conference, see the Electronic >Commerce Website: http://www.usenix.org/events/ec98 > >IMPORTANT DATES >Extended abstracts due: March 6, 1998 >Notification to authors: April 17, 1998 >Camera-ready final papers due: July 21, 1998 > > >PROGRAM COMMITTEE >Chair: Bennet S. Yee, UC San Diego > >Ross Anderson, Cambridge University >Nathaniel Borenstein, First Virtual >Marc Donner, Morgan Stanley >Niels Ferguson, Digicash >Mark Manasse, Digital Equipment Corp. >Cliff Neuman, University of Southern California >Avi Rubin, AT&T Labs >Win Treese, OpenMarket >Hal Varian, U.C. Berkeley >Doug Tygar, Carnegie Mellon University > > >OVERVIEW > >The Third Workshop on Electronic Commerce will provide a major >opportunity for researchers, experimenters, and practitioners in >this rapidly self-defining field to exchange ideas and present the >results of their work. It will set the technical agenda for work in >electronic commerce by enabling workers to examine urgent >questions, share their insights and discover connections with other >work that might otherwise go unnoticed. To facilitate this, the >conference will not be limited to technical problems and solutions, >but will also consider their context: the economic and regulatory >forces that influence the engineering choices we make, and the >social and economic impact of network based trading systems. > > >TUTORIALS PROPOSALS WELCOME > >One day of tutorials will precede the Workshop on August 31. >USENIX's well-respected tutorials are intensive and provide >immediately-useful information delivered by skilled instructors who >are hands-on experts in their topic areas. Topics for the >Electronic Commerce Workshop will include, but are not limited to, >security and cryptography. If you are interested in presenting a >tutorial, please contact: > >Dan Klein, Coordinator >Email: dvk(a)usenix.org >Phone: 412.421.2332 > > >WORKSHOP TOPICS > >Two and one-half days of technical sessions will follow the >tutorials. We welcome submissions for technical and position paper >presentations, reports of work-in-progress, technology debates, and >identification of new open problems. Birds-of-a-Feather sessions in >the evenings and a keynote speaker will round out the program. > >We seek papers that address a wide range of issues and ongoing >developments, including, but not limited to: > >Advertising >Anonymous transactions >Auditability >Business issues >Copy protection >Credit/Debit/Cash models >Cryptographic security >Customer service >Digital money >EDI >Electronic libraries >Electronic wallets >Email-enabled business >Exception handling >Identity verification >Internet direct marketing >Internet/WWW integration >Key management >Legal and policy issues >Micro-transactions >Negotiations >Privacy >Proposed systems >Protocols >Reliability >Reports on existing systems >Rights management >Service guarantees >Services vs. digital goods >Settlement >Smart-cards > >Questions regarding a topic's relevance to the workshop may be >addressed to the program chair via electronic mail to >ec98chair(a)usenix.org. USENIX will publish Conference Proceedings >which are provided free to technical session attendees; additional >copies will be available for purchase from USENIX. > > >WHAT TO SUBMIT > >Technical paper submissions and proposals for panels must be >received by March 6, 1998. We welcome submissions of the following >type: > >1. Refereed Papers - Full papers or extended abstracts should be five > to 20 pages, not counting references and figures. > >2. Panel proposals - Proposals should be three to seven pages, > together with a list of names of potential panelists. If > accepted, the proposer must secure the participation of > panelists, and prepare a three to seven page summary of panel > issues for inclusion in the Proceedings. This summary can > include position statements by panel participants. > >3. Work-In-Progress Reports - Short, pithy, and fun, WIP reports > introduce interesting new or ongoing work and should be 1 to 3 > pages in length. If you have work you would like to share or a > cool idea that is not quite ready to publish, a WIP is for you! > We are particularly interested in presenting student work. > >Each submission must include a cover letter stating the paper title >and authors, along with the name of the person who will act as the >contact to the program committee. Please include a surface mail >address, daytime and evening phone number, email and fax numbers >and, if available, a URL for each author. If all of the authors are >students, please indicate that in the cover letter for award >consideration (see "Awards" below). > >USENIX workshops, like most conferences and journals, require that >papers not be submitted simultaneously to more than one conference >or publication and that submitted papers not be previously or >subsequently published elsewhere. Submissions accompanied by >non-disclosure agreement forms are not acceptable and will be >returned to the author(s) unread. All submissions are held in the >highest confidentiality prior to publication in the Proceedings, >both as a matter of policy and in accord with the U.S. Copyright >Act of 1976. > > >WHERE TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS > >Please send submissions to the program committee via one of the >following methods. All submissions will be acknowledged. > >Preferred Method: email (Postscript or PDF formats only) to: >ec98papers(a)usenix.org. > >Files should be encoded for transport with uuencode or MIME base64 >encoding. Authors should ensure that the PostScript is generic and >portable so that their papers will print on a broad range of >postscript printers, and should submit in sufficient time to allow >us to contact the author about alternative delivery mechanisms in >the event of network or other failure. If you send PostScript, >remember the following: > >1) Use only the most basic fonts (TimesRoman, Helvetica, Courier). > Other fonts are not available with every printer or previewer. > >2) PostScript that requires some special prolog to be loaded into > the printer won't work for us. Please don't send it. > >3) If you use a PC- or Macintosh-based word processor to generate > your PostScript, print it on a generic PostScript printer before > sending it, to make absolutely sure that the PostScript is > portable. > >4) If you are generating the PostScript from a program running > under Windows, make sure that you establish the "portable" > setting, not the "speed" setting for PostScript generation. > >A good heuristic is to make sure that recent versions of Ghostview >(e.g. Ghostview 1.5 using Ghostscript 3.33) can display your >paper. > >Alternate Method: 10 copies, via postal delivery to: > >EC'98 Submissions >USENIX Association >2560 Ninth Street, Suite 215 >Berkeley, CA 94710 > >For detailed submission guidelines, send email to ec98authors(a)usenix.org, >refer to the conference Web page at >www.usenix.org/events/ec98/guidelines.html, >or send email to the program chair at ec98chair(a)usenix.org. An >electronic version of this Call for Papers is available at: >www.usenix.org/events/ec98/. > > >BIRDS-OF-A-FEATHER SESSIONS (BoFs) > >Do you have a topic that you'd like to discuss with others? Our >Birds-of-a-Feather Sessions may be perfect for you. BoFs are very >interactive and informal gatherings for attendees interested in a >particular topic. Schedule your BoF in advance by telephoning the >USENIX Conference Office at 714.588.8649 or sending email to: >conference(a)usenix.org. > > >AWARDS > >The program committee will offer awards of $500 for the best paper >and the best student paper. > > >REGISTRATION INFORMATION > >Materials containing all details of the technical and tutorial >programs, registration fees and forms and hotel information will be >available in June, 1998. If you wish to receive the registration >materials, please contact USENIX at: > >USENIX Conference Office >22672 Lambert Street, Suite 613 >Lake Forest, CA 92630 >Phone: 714 588 8649 >Fax: 714 588 9706 >Email: conference(a)usenix.org > > >ABOUT USENIX > >USENIX is the Advanced Computing Systems Association. Since 1975 >USENIX has brought together the community of engineers, system >administrators, and technicians working on the cutting edge of the >computing world. For more information about USENIX: > >URL: http://www.usenix.org >Email: office(a)usenix.org >Fax: 510.548.5738 >Phone: 510.528.8649 > > For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to "dcsb-request(a)ai.mit.edu" with one line of text: "help". --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 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' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>

1 0