- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: ISPs vs Bells - Email FCC
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:26 AM 2/7/97 -0500, Derrick Storren wrote: >By Michelle V. Rafter >LOS ANGELES - Regional phone companies and Internet service providers >are waging a war of words over Internet traffic on the nation's local >telephone network and who should pay for upgrades as the online boom >continues. [snip] >In one corner, Pacific Bell, Bell Atlantic and other regional phone >carriers say the growth of Internet traffic is pushing local telephone >networks to the breaking point. > >Pacific Bell, for example, says Internet surfers use its phone lines an >average of 45 minutes a day -- more than twice the amount the network >was built to handle. Heavy Internet use in Silicon Valley led to brief >service outages in that area earlier this year, the company said. This is an "excellent" example of lying with statistics. Contrary to the implication above, telephone switches aren't designed to handle a certain amount of telephone traffic per day; Rather, they are designed to handle a certain peak amount of traffic. This, and the knowledge about the typical usage patterns that communities generally see in their telephones allows a statistician to estimate how much traffic that switch will actually see per day, in the real world. However, change the pattern of usage, perhaps by adding usage to previously-underused time periods, and you could dramatically increase the daily traffic statistics for a given telephone switch. If, say, 2% of the population were to suddenly decide to make 6-hour phone calls daily between 12 midnight and 6am, a time of very low usage, you might increase the average daily usage by 50%, but with absolutely no increase in the peak usage during the daytime hours nor need for new switches. While that's a fanciful example, a similar effect occurs, I think. I've seen a set of graphs showing the typical usage level for the Teleport ISP, and it appears that while usage reaches a level of about 70% between about 8 am and 4 PM, it continues to increase after 4pm, solidly peaking between 8 pm and 11 pm at about 98% usage. This is long past the time that most humans make voice phone calls. The implication is that easily 3/5 of Teleport's traffic occurs after 4 pm and 6 am next morning, a time frame which is definitely post-peak hours. (Traditionally, pre-Internet, telephone usages peaks at about 11 am and 3 pm.) Since modern telephone switches don't wear out, unused call capacity is simply wasted. It makes no sense to charge people more for services which cost the supplier no more to provide. >If, for example, Internet providers passed through an access fee of 1 >cent a minute, a subscriber spending 10 hours online a month would pay >an extra $6 -- hardly a deterrent, said David Goodtree, an analyst with >Forrester Research in Cambridge, Mass. Even that is unacceptable. If an average ISP's phone line was busy 50% of the time, with "only" an extra charge of 1 cent per minute, that would be an average charge of $7.20 per day, or $216 per month, as compared to a typical business line which might cost, say, $40 per month. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:35 AM 2/6/97 -0600, snow wrote: >> At 09:05 PM 2/4/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: >> >on or about 970204:0312 Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> said: >> >+ Is the desire for an anarchic community at odds with a desire for >> >+ good use of resources? >> Actually, it is quite possible that an "anarchic community" is _more_ >> efficient in the use of resources than some sort of organized community. >> It is explained, for example, that the reason there are so many different >> kinds of life on earth is that there are so many ecological niches to fill. > > Good does not necessarily mean efficient, and efficient does not >necessarily mean good. Since the definition of "good" above wasn't specified, I substituted "efficient." > Picture--if you can--the "perfect" centrally planned economy where all >possible market conditions, wants and needs are taken into account. Factories >are placed optimally for access to natural resources and distribution to >consumers etc. Also assume that the people running this society _are_ intersted >in efficient production methods, and activly look for new and better ways of >getting things done--benign facism/socialism if you will. This would (assuming >perfect people, but bear with me) be the _most efficient_ method of producing >and delivering goods, but it would introduce certain "choke points", one >natural disaster or war could cripple production of necessary items. Let me suggest, however, that in addition to the "choke point" problem, it is also impossible, maybe even theoretically so, for a similar reason "Maxwell's Demon" is. Maxwell's Demon, for those unfamiliar with thermodynamics, was a gate which was postulated to allow the passage of molecules of energy greater than average, and stop the passage of molecules of energy less than average. The net result would have been, theoretically, a separation of a gas into two halves of dramatically different temperatures. However, given such a heat separation, it should be possible through some heat engine to extract energy from this difference, and return the gas to its prior statistical distribution of energies. Was this "something from nothing"? Obviously this appeared to be a serious contradiction, given the various laws of thermodynamics, and it was. It turns out that the source of the contradiction is the false presumption, implied above, that it is possible to identify and thus separate molecules without using appreciable amounts of energy. Perhaps not surprisingly, the amount of energy needed to do the separation is at least as great as whatever amount of energy you could theoretically extract from the system, almost magically balancing the books. I suggest that centrally-planned economic theory may fail for a very similar reason: Implicit in that analysis it is assume that it is possible to do a "cost-free" plan, where in reality costs do occur. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

RRE: Copyright and the Net
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 8-FEB-1997 23:44:12.64 To: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" CC: Subj: Copyright and the Net: Is Legislation the Answer? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 22:03:10 -0500 From: Dave Banisar <banisar(a)EPIC.ORG> Subject: Panel - Copyright and the Net: Is Legislation the Answer? Copyright and the Net: Is Legislation the Answer? ACM97: The Next 50 Years of Computing Sunday March 2 2:00 PM - 5:00 PM Fairmont Hotel San Jose, CA Sponsored by the U.S. Public Policy Committee of ACM (USACM) Panelists: Hank Barry, Pam Samuelson, Mark Stefik, Gio Wiederhold Moderator: Barbara Simons, Chair, USACM o What is the role of copyright in all-electronic publication world? Will it be replaced by contract law? o Can the needs of authors who want to publish for renown (academics) and authors that want to publish for pay (entertainment etc) be handled in one mechanism? o Should browsing on the World Wide Web of full copyrighted texts be made illegal because people make temporary copies in their computer's memory when they look at a web page? o Should online service providers, including libraries and universities, have to monitor user accounts in order to enforce copyright laws? o Should firms that compile data have intellectual property rights so that scientists and news reporters can't use the data without permission or payments? o How should existing differences in national copyright be handled in a networked world where national boundaries and are little more than a speedbump on the information superhighway? o Does technological protection for copyrighted works inherently undermine fair use ? These and related issues will confront the 105th Congress in the coming year. They will also be examined by this panel, which will discuss controversies surrounding the extension of copyright law to deal with cyberspace. Examples include: How does proposed legislation reflect the net? How much influence have lobbyists for the entertainment industry had in writing legislation? What should be the role of professional societies in analyzing policy initiatives? We will discussed legislation and international treaties that have been proposed by the White House. We will also examine both technical and legal approaches to problems created by the net, as well as how various approaches might impact the science, technology, and business communities. A significant amount of time will be allowed for audience interaction in the discussion. Biographical sketches Hank Barry is member of the firm of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and is Chairman of the firm's Interactive New Media practice group. He represents publicly and privately-held companies in the multimedia, software, computer, on-line and entertainment industries. Hank has authored numerous articles in the fields of venture capital, interactive media and technology transactions. He currently serves on the Editorial Board of the Cyberspace Lawyer. Hank received his law degree in 1983 from Stanford University, where he was managing editor of the Stanford Law Review. Pamela Samuelson is a Professor at the University of California at Berkeley where she holds a joint appointment at the School of Information Management and Systems and in the School of Law. She has written and spoken extensively on the challenges posed by digital technologies for the law, particularly in the field of intellectual property. She is a Contributing Editor of Communications of the ACM and a Fellow of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Mark Stefik is a principal scientist at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. At Stanford University he received a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics in 1970 and a Ph.D. in computer science in 1980. His current research activities are in approaches for creating, protecting, and reusing digital property. Stefik is review editor for the international journal "Artificial Intelligence" and has authored two books on AI-related topics and a third book on the Internet. Gio Wiederhold is a professor of Computer Science at Stanford University, with courtesy appointments in Medicine and Electrical Engineering. His research focuses on large-scale software construction, specifically applied to information systems, the protection of their content, often using knowledge-based techniques. Wiederhold has authored and coauthored more than 250 published papers and reports on computing and medicine. Wiederhold received a degree in Aeronautical Engineering in Holland in 1957 and a Ph. D. in Medical Information Science from the University of California at San Francisco in 1976. He has been elected fellow of the ACMI, the IEEE and the ACM. He currently serves on the ACM Publications Board, focusing on the move to electronic publication. Barbara Simons received her Ph.D. in Computer Science from U.C. Berkeley in 1981. She joined the Research Division of IBM in 1980; she is currently working in IBM Global Services. Simons is a Fellow of both the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and ACM. In 1995 she was selected as one of 26 Internet "Visionaries" by c|net, and in 1994 Open Computing included her in its list of the top 100 women in computing. She was awarded the 1992 CPSR Norbert Wiener Award for Professional and Social Responsibility in Computing. Simons founded and chairs USACM, the ACM U. S. Public Policy Committee.

1 0

RRE: Proposed satellite monitoring of car movements in Sweden
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In reply to Dr. Agre's comment, I'd point out that one normally has more than one insurance company to choose from... not the case with governmentally-imposed road taxes. -Allen From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 9-FEB-1997 02:12:23.32 To: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" CC: Subj: Proposed satellite monitoring of car movements in Sweden [If it wasn't taxes, it would be insurance.] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:04:07 -0800 (PST) From: risks(a)csl.sri.com Subject: RISKS DIGEST 18.81 RISKS-LIST: Risks-Forum Digest Thursday 6 February 1997 Volume 18 : Issue 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 20:39:29 +0100 (MET) From: Feliks Kluzniak <feliks(a)carlstedt.se> Subject: Proposed satellite monitoring of car movements in Sweden The new issue of "Dagens IT", no. 3, dated 28 Jan - 3 Feb 1997 (a Swedish paper aimed at information technology professionals), contains an item that might be of some interest to those RISKS readers who followed discussions about automatic highway toll booths in the US and related subjects. My (probably imperfect) translation follows. Car users will be be put in "feetcuffs" (written by Margaretha Sundstroem) With the help of a new satellite system car users might pay different taxes, depending on when and where they drive. This is what the State communications commission is said to be discussing. According to (the newspaper) "Dagens Politik", the State communications commission is discussing a proposal to use satellites for determining car taxes in the future. It is proposed that all of Sweden's 3.5 million cars should be equipped with a little reader fastened to the instrument board. Car users would then buy cards that can be inserted into the reader. The card would communicate with a satellite that would register where you drive and for how long. The car tax would then be withdrawn from the card. The proposal has been put forward by the State institution for communication analysis. They estimate that just the Stockholm (tax) authorities would be able to earn six billion crowns by using this system. The costs for car users would thereby increase. - - - - The reference to "feetcuffs" (by analogy to "handcuffs" - ankle shackles?) is an allusion to radio transmitters that are irremovably fastened to the ankles of some criminals in this country so that the authorities can monitor their compliance with the rules of house arrest. The word "communication" is meant to include car traffic etc. The word "billion" is given in its US meaning: a thousand million. The risks? Apart from the risks of having very complex systems automatically determine how much you have to pay, there are the usual privacy considerations. Some cry out "big brother". Others say you are already in this situation if you carry a cellular phone. Feliks Kluzniak, Carlstedt Research & Technology, Gothenburg ------------------------------ End of RISKS-FORUM Digest 18.81 ************************ Standard Risks reuse notice: Reused without explicit authorization under blanket permission granted for all Risks-Forum Digest materials. The author(s), the RISKS moderator, and the ACM have no connection with this reuse.

1 0

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C[reep] Mayo's IQ is lower than the belly of a pregnant snake. ,/ \, ((__,-,,,-,__)), `--)~ ~(--` .-'( )`-, `~~`d\ /b`~~` | | (6___6) `---`

1 0

Re: MODERATION
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

While I ultimately concluded it (or at least the manner of doing it) was a bad idea, I am appreciative of the effort. I hope this won't discourage you too much from trying out other (hopefully better) ideas. -Allen

2 1

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:44 PM 2/5/97 -0800, Sean Roach wrote: >This time I have opted for a point by point. >At 07:59 PM 2/5/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>1. Large numbers of potentially competent and useful people get put into >>useless jobs: "Army, Navy, and Marines, and Air Force" spring to mind. >>(Those people who still think military spending is really necessary >>obviously haven't read AP.) >This point I can not argue with, at least not directly. I do believe that >the military way is wasteful of resources. Notice, however, that "pre-AP-theory," there was never any "good" way to theorize getting rid of the military: It always appeared that OUR military was needed to protect us against THEIR military. AP fixes that problem. > However, this is one area that >has actually benefitted the lower-income bracket in that it gives them >"inexpensive" (off-chance of death) access to good training. "War is good business...Invest your son!" There's no doubt that militaries look like a good deal to at least some fraction of the population. However, as is usually true, the amount of money that could be saved if we didn't have to buy military junk would do just as well applied to other products or services. >>2. Large amounts of money are spent on military hardware, money which goes >>to fund people who would otherwise develop useful products in the >>non-government private sector. >Three things that promote technological growth, expansion, war, threat of war. >As for expansion. we really have no where else to go. As for war and threat >of war, the computer was invented during a war, atomic energy was harnessed >during war, the internet was created during threat of war. Many >advancements, though not all, come to benefit society later. For that >matter, steel was probably invented during a war as well, but I can't prove it. I think that's a somewhat distorted way to look at it. War drastically changes the economics associated with technical developments: In WWII, millions of dollars became available for development of computers due to their ability to decrypt codes. It is by no means surprising that suddenly making it 10x more affordable to buy computers (not by reducing their costs, but by raising the amount of money provided) would make computers appear to be the product of war. You may recall estimates (which are frequently re-quoted, BTW)that proposed that there would only be a market for (say) 5-10 computers in the world. That estimate is frequently cited as an example of how wrong they were, but in reality that estimate assumed pricing based on then-current costs, and they were probably accurate! It is the _subsequent_ development of transistors which made those original estimates "wrong." Nuclear power, similarly, was born in a flood of money for the same war. Expensive government installations, such as Los Alamos, NM, Hanford Washington, and Oak Ridge Tennessee were built for that purpose. Activities which would have been highly uneconomical during peacetime were suddenly worth doing. If war makes technical development happen, it is only because of how supremely wasteful it is. Useful things still get done, but they get done in a highly uneconomical fashion and _before_ they would normally be done in a non-war world. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

UNSUBCRIBE CENSORSHIP
by Aron Bierbaum 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

UNSUBCRIBE CENSORSHIP

1 0

Re: No Dimitri?
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dead Vulgar K>rust< Of The Moment's police record is many times longer than his prick (well, that's not hard). o_o ( ) Dead Vulgar K>rust< Of The Moment ( | | ) ' " " `

1 0

Passphrase generation
by Internaut 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, I am wanting to learn how to generate a passphrase that is at least as strong as the IDEA algorithm. I have looked several other places on the web for an answer to this, but they all had different things to say that didn't add up (no pun intended :). The IDEA algorithm it seems is 2^128 = 3.402823669209e+38 = 16 bytes (charactors). The charactor count seems kinda small (I am presuming the 16 charactors are truely random). Indeed, 128(ASCII charactor set)^16 = 5.192296858535e+33. Is my thinking right here? Is it better to do this- 94(printable ASCII set)^20 = 2.901062411315e+39, yielding 20 charactors? Also, if you come up with a phrase and put enough (perhaps 5 or 6) ASCII nonsense in there for it not to be in any crack dictionaries, how random is that? Is it only as random as the extra charactors you put in? How would you calculate that? Also, how many charactors do you have to add of a set to add its permulations (i.e. Does gibber&sh add all ASCII symbols to the equation)? Thanks, Internaut

2 1