- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Mandatory Voluntary Self-Ratings
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"tcmay(a)got.net" 8-MAY-1996 16:30:16.71 >Then we'll see what happens. (This is an old debate, here and on the >Cyberia-l list, to wit, what happens when people/perverts/libertarians >choose to subvert the voluntary ratings by deliberately mis-rating their >stuff? Or what if they genuinely believe, a la NAMBLA, that youngsters >should be exposed to certain things?) I don't agree with NAMBLA, BTW, in case anyone is wondering... >I say it's a waste of our time to even be thinking or worrying about how to >implement an infrastructure for ratings. In fact, building such an >infrastructure could make later imposition of "mandatory voluntary ratings" >(Orwell would be unsurprised) a greater likelihood. Quite. There's also the misuse of it by other countries to do filtration (Chinese firewall et al). While this isn't an argument that having it is something that shouldn't be permitted, it's a consideration that those constructing some such system should keep in mind. I haven't seen any evidence that either RCIS (sp?) or SafeSurf have done so. -Allen

1 0

Re: FW: Science Project Fair
by Clay.Olbon＠dynetics.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Deja vu all over again. This was forwarded to me by someone within my company a while back. I may be cynical, but the chances of this being a hoax are just too high - it is simply too easy to send out a message like this to get an email address mailbombed. I recommend against replying to this. Clay At 7:20 AM 5/9/96, Husa, Carl (MSX) wrote: >>---------- >>From: Beverly. Ferguson[SMTP:103014.3727@CompuServe.COM] >>Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 1996 9:38 PM >>To: KOMBUCHA DIGEST; PARACELSUS DIGEST >>Subject: Science Project Fair >> >> >>Originally Posted To: >> >>>Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 09:58:55 -0400 >>>Sender: Methods of Teaching Mathematics <TEACHMAT(a)UICVM.UIC.EDU> >>>From: Peggy R Shearin <pshearin(a)WARREN.CES.NCSU.EDU> >>>Subject: Science Fair Project >> >>>>Hi, our names are Stevie and Amanda. We are in the 5th grade at >>>>the Phillipston Memorial school, Phillipston, Massachusetts, USA. >>>>We are doing a science project on the Internet. We want to see >>>>how many responses we can get back in two weeks. (We are only >>>>sending out 2 letters). >> >>>>Please respond and then send this letter to anyone you >>>>communicate with on the Internet. >> >>>>Respond to smc(a)tiac.net. >>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >>>>1. Where do you live (state and country)? >> >> >>>>2. From whom did you get this letter? >> >> >>>>Thank you, >>>>Stevie and Amanda >> >>------------------------------ >> >>

1 0

Re: Mandatory Voluntary Self-Ratings
by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:46 PM 5/9/96 EDT, you wrote: > While that they aren't going for "this isn't appropriate" is to their >credit, they do have a lot of problems with the nonsensical nature of some >of their ratings; take a look at the definitions, for instance. (It's also >obvious that they simply copied them from their ratings of video games. A lot >of their HTML references for the definitions are messed up, incidentally.) I would agree the questions seem too video game orientated, and I don't like some of the questions either. However, it is a fair effort, and I don't think if something is questionable (for instance, someone errs by labeling someone that is 18 years old as a teenager) the whole system falls to pieces. Or some crucial piece of information on my home page, that some child might have seen, but won't be seen because I labeled a character in one of my stories as a teenager even if he/she was a teenager. I'm sure this is something that could go on for a very long time in some cypherpunk thread (something I'm not interested in argueing about), but there is no such thing as a perfectly objective or unbiased system. For instance, I don't like the distinctions other systems make for homosexuality, but I also understand some parents may wish to screen on it... _______________________ Regards, Men govern nothing with more difficulty than their tongues, and can moderate their desires more than their words. -Spinoza Joseph Reagle http://farnsworth.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle(a)mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E

1 0

Re: Transitive trust and MLM
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"raph(a)cs.berkeley.edu" "Raph Levien" 8-MAY-1996 23:28:14.30 > Now we can actually evaluate the probability of a given key being >good. Consider a Monte Carlo process in which each edge in the graph is >present with probability 1-p. For each run, we determine whether the >recipient's public key (actually the binding between public key and >recipient's e-mail address) is reachable from our trust root. The >probability over a large number of runs is (given our assumptions) the >probability of the key being good. > One encouraging consequence of this model is that densely connected >subgraphs can result in highly trusted keys even if p itself is quite >small. In a clique of size k, the trust is (very) roughly 1-(1-p)^k. For >example, if p is a mere 50%, then in a clique of size 10, each key in >the clique is trusted with a probability of 99.9%. Hmm.... I've got the problem with this that the measure you're using is really good for creating an _upper bound_ for how trustworthy a given key is - not for how trustworthy it actually is. In other words, a key that has your, Lance Cottrell (sp?), Black Unicorn's, and TCMay's signatures on it is pretty reliably determined (at least to me) as being that of whom they say it is - but that isn't equivalent to how good the person is at determining other key linkages. It's an upper bound on how good the person is - if you don't trust a key as not having been compromised (due to a lack of key signatures), you aren't going to rate it highly as an introducer. The interesting question is what relation to this upper bound (and to other characteristics of the web, such as the degree of mutual signatures in a chain) the actual introducer trustworthiness has. -Allen

1 0

Re: Remailer in a box
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"loki(a)obscura.com" "Lance Cottrell" 9-MAY-1996 20:11:17.14 >I don't know about posting the agreement. My lawyer may not want to see all >his hard work in the public domain. I will ask. Thanks. Incidentally, one thing that I noticed in your listing of services was email to fax. In some circumstances (such as anonymous accounts), the other way around would be useful. Even for a non-anonymous account, there have been times when I've wished I could give someone a FAX number and have it emailed. Admittedly, there is the problem of optical character recognition et al; perhaps this could be handled via temporary web pages with a password emailed to an account on the same system? Sameer may also want to look into this. I've seen some information about such systems on the net; one in New York appears to include voicemail to email services, although I don't know how as yet. -Allen

1 0

Re: Mandatory Voluntary Self-Ratings
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"reagle(a)mit.edu" "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." 9-MAY-1996 20:02:59.66 > I would agree the questions seem too video game orientated, and I >don't like some of the questions either. However, it is a fair effort, and I I will also give them credit for a fair effort. However, it's one that can stand a _lot_ of improvement... like all the rest. > I'm sure this is something that could go on for a very long time in >some cypherpunk thread (something I'm not interested in argueing about), but >there is no such thing as a perfectly objective or unbiased system. For I will be interested in seeing a response from the admin address I cc'd it to. >instance, I don't like the distinctions other systems make for >homosexuality, but I also understand some parents may wish to screen on it... I understand why parents may wish to screen on it; I still disapprove of giving them the ability to do so. Am I in favor of governmental or other coercive suppression of systems that do so? No, not at all. But I still will do my best to discourage them - such as by not rating or mis-rating pages. -Allen

1 0

The National Research Council Study of National...
by CRYPTO 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject: The National Research Council Study of National Cryptography Policy Please post this message widely I am writing to let interested parties know about the imminent release of the NRC's study of national cryptography policy. If all goes well, we hope to release it on May 30, 1996. However, prior to that time, we won't be able to comment on its contents. For current information on release, visit the web site http://www2.nas.edu/cstbweb/220a.html When you visit that site, you'll have the opportunity to be put onto a mailing list so that we can inform you by e-mail when the report is available in print and/or electronically, as well as any public events associated with the report (e.g., public briefings). Herb Lin Cryptography Policy Study Director Computer Science and Telecommunications Board National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council 202-334-2605

1 0

REF_orm
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

5-10-96. WaPo: "House Panel Approves Intelligence Reforms." Reports on the House intelligence committee's differences with the Senate and White House reforms. Also, it reports on Freeh's testimony yesterday at a hearing about the need for new federal laws to protect against economic espionage. He cites spying by 23 foreign governments and methods used. REF_orm ----- Note: Pipeline is suffering "technological" growing pains at PSI's VA switches, so they say (or maybe plummeting stock and insider dumps): incoming and outgoing mail oft delayed up to 24+.

1 0

Re: Remailer in a box
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"loki(a)obscura.com" "Lance Cottrell" 9-MAY-1996 18:58:23.21 On Thu, 9 May 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >> After taking a look at www.cyberpass.net, I can see why you're >> encoraging people to use it - about like Sameer encouraging people to use >> c2.org. >Guilty No problem. Modesty is an overrated virtue. >I am not pushing the anonymous accounts until my laywer finishes the user >agreement for them. It is a bit of a tricky document (Sameer, want a copy >when it is done?). The whole site is days away from a complete redesign, >so I am not putting much effort into the current interface. Thanks for >the suggestions though. I suspect that the legal types on cypherpunks would be interested in seeing it. Quite welcome on the suggestions. >The >= 18 condition is to cover my butt. Since minors can not be parties >to contracts, I have no protection with them as clients. I am only a >provider for adults, and they take full responsibility for any children >allowed to use the connection. Fuck the CDA, but keep an eye on its claws. I see your difficulty. It is an additional one with respect to anonymous accounts. Hmm... you could put the burden on other ISPs by only having anonymous accounts via telnet access - and not accepting such from k12.edu domains. Bit of a limit, though. -Allen

3 2

Free demo disk of "distorted number" crypto
by Mark O. Aldrich 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

C'punks: I got a call from a group in Maryland called "Marketing Technologies, Inc." They are starting to distribute free demo copies of a new crypto technology created by "Blackstar, Inc." The crypto product, called "Supercrypt," is based upon "distorted number generation." This does not appear to be the product sold under the same name by Computer Elektronik Infosys. Naturally, I enquired as to where the algorithms had been published in the technical literature, but the sales rep indicated that, while copyrighted, Blackstar does not yet hold a patent so they are concerned about releasing the details. She described the product as using a "proprietary" algorithm. If you'd like to get a demo copy of the software, call Marketing Technologies at 301.588.1971. You'll probably be speaking with Linda Greenwald, who's got _some_ information available, but not anything that's technical. They are also offering a technical write-up via fax-back at 301.588.2162. Note that I'm not endorsing this product, I'm just relaying information that may be of interest. If anything, you can get a copy of a new toy to muck with in your spare(?) time. No, they are not yet on the Internet. I'll relay my experiences with the product after I get it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Liberty is truly dead |Mark Aldrich | | when the slaves are willing |GRCI INFOSEC Engineering | | to forge their own chains. |maldrich(a)grci.com | | STOP THE CDA NOW! |MAldrich(a)dockmaster.ncsc.mil | |_______________________________________________________________________| |The author is PGP Empowered. Public key at: finger maldrich(a)grci.com | | The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author | | and my employer gets no credit for them whatsoever. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 2