- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: FDA_dis
by Murray Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 29 Oct 1996 17:51:56 -0500, Hallam-Baker wrote: >Declan McCullagh wrote: >> >> I'll have to reread John's piece tomorrow (I'm on vacation right now), but >> it doesn't surprise me. He and I have been arguing about this topic via >> email for the last week or so. He takes the traditional liberal view of >> government regulation of drugs is necessary; I take the more libertarian one. >> >> The Cato Institute, BTW, will be putting together a roundtable on this soon. >> >> -Declan > >Characterising this as the "traditional liberal view" is somewhat >misleading, >its not as if Bob Dole or Newt Gingrich would disagree much. The >argument is >more over which special interest group is to be advantaged by changes in >regulation. If I was a citizen of a country where the government was >elected >by a billion dollars of corporate contributions I might be a >libertarian. Are you saying that you are anti-corporation? That would make no sense. Many corporations are very benificial to society. Take Shell for example. It did all that it could to save the life of that guy in Nigeria, but the "libertarians" who instantly boycotted Shell would have you belive that they encouraged the sentence. >Its important to remember that its the World Wide Web and not simply >limited >to the US. As long as US companies set up subsidiaries in Europe they >will be constrained by European law. In the net.age law is becomming a >major >export for many countries. What is becoming a major export? Weak laws? Why would a country encourage criminals to come to it's boarders? >Regulation is not necessarily anti-commerce. UK beef farmers would be >better >off today if there had been more regulation, a weak "free-market" >attitude >to public health has destroyed the entire industry. I don't think you have analysed the situation. It was the regulating that deystroyed the UK cattel industry and put the entire world at risk. The British government protected the beef industry despite a ban on British beef accross Europe. If Eroupe is considered to be the "Free Market" as you suggest, then it would be exactly opposite to what you have suggested. The "Free Market" labled the animals coming from Britian to be of questionable quality. The regualtors in Britian disaggreed because it would cost them a few penny's to slauter the infected heards. Then Britians started getting sick. The rest of the world throws up bans of British beef; Yet the British regulators still do not cleanse the heards. The only way to ensure the desease is gone is to kill every last cow in Britian and bring in fresh stock. THAT MEANS NO GIVING THEM TO INDIA YOU STUPID FUCKS. It is often in a >companies >commercial interest to voluntarily agree to be regulated. Microsoft >recently >signed an agreement to be bound by the European computer privacy >regulations >because by doing so they gained a business advantage - people would >trust >them with their data. This is another interesting point. Why is it better for a company to agree to any regulation? Do you REALLY trust Microsoft? I do not. They write poor code. They probably signed the aggreement because they knew that there product was so bad that it couldn't violate any restrictions or they contracted the work out to the NSA who wrote the code for them and so they know that it can be cracked if they need to track down every last copy of the OS for their marketing group to do a statistical analysis on. > >Much of the advertising regulation being discussed is private, agreement >on >standard formats for image placements for example. There is existing >government >regulation of advertising in many countries however. In particular much >stricter control over advertising of drugs, making misleading statements >in >advertising and so on.In the UK there is regulation of advertising >through >the advertising standards council which is a voluntary body in the sense >that it has no statutory enforcement powers but has practical authority >because the publishers will not publishe ads that fall foul of its >decisions. I belive that this is the GOVERNMENT body called the BBC. We have a similary group up here called the Communist Broadcast Corporation. Actually, I must be fair to them, I do like Air Farce. I don't think your argument holds any water. Different cultures have different social norms. I was quite shocked to see John Clease stark f**king naked on a tea commercial (isn't tea a carrier of caffine? yes. Does caffine change the way in which you body works? yes. Is caffine food? no; therefore caffine is a drug and tea carries that drug.) > >A more serious problem however is likely to be dramatically different >cultural norms. In the US people expect to be lied to in adverts. In >countries >where there is regulation of advertising there is a general expectation >for comparisons to be fair and for ads to be truthful. I'm just waiting >for a major corporation to create an Intel scale PR disaster by applying >sleasly US style marketing techniques in markets where the downside is >very large. One recent example is Hoover which had a $30 odd million >debacle over a "free flights" giveaway that was based on sleasly US >style >marketing techniques. The company ended up having to live up to the >spirit of its offer rather than the letter as it intended simply to >preserve the value of the brand. So? All this proves is that the US is more oreiented toward the free market than other places. In the free market, on's "brand value" is incredibly important. I think you are also missing the distinction between a company and it's marketing. I'm sure Hoover, as in your example, has many marketing camnpaines going on at any time and that every so often an overeager director of the comapany that Hoover hired to do the campain makes a mistake. I'm sure this happens all the time, just take a look at another marketing company: Microsoft. > >If you don't believe in anti trust laws there is no basis on which you >can object to the sort of regulation by cabal that the advertising >standards council represents. Of course such cabals cannot exist in the >libertarian belief system since their existence is denied a-priori >by invoking the spirit of Milton Freedman. Milton Freedmen is of course >a rightwing ecconomist whose theories are widely admired by free >market ecconomists who admire Mitlon Freedman. Does that mean a libertarian is more Free Market oriented or more Command Market oriented? I'm not sure there is any correlation at all. I belive in anti trust laws, does that mean I can object to regualtions? mhayes(a)infomatch.com It's better for us if you don't understand It's better for me if you don't understand -Tragically Hip

3 2

RE: Censorship on cypherpunks
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Will French .........In any case, it's an admission on John Gilmore's part that libertarianism can't work without some measure of authoritarianism; the only argument is over _just how much_ authoritarianism we need. .............................................. Well, as Ludwig von Mises [an economist] would put it, "The issue is not _some_ authoritarianism vs _no_ authoritariansim, but *whose* authoritarianism." Libertarianism is about individual authority. John Gilmore acted as the individual that he is. If he shouldn't act upon under his own authority, he being in the position that he is relative to the existence of the cpunks, then the list doesn't represent libertarian ideals. The list is not an institution representing a philosophy to which all participants must subordinate themselves. Au contraire, it represents an opportunity for the free exercise of reason and one's personal judgement. I think this has been a good example of that. (obviously the venerable and computer-knowledgeable Dr. Vulius can find ways to sneak back in and continue to play his fun games, thus evidencing _his_ .... judgement.) .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Optical repeaters
by Phil G. Fraering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) Newsgroups: hks.lists.cypherpunks \Given that a quantum cryptography system depends on *single photons* to /work, I'm not sure that talk of amplifification makes sense. Between source \and receiver, a photon either makes it or doesn't. If it makes it, it makes /it will its full "quanta" of energy, of course. If it doesn't make it, due \to tunnel-penetrating the walls of the fiber or scattering off an impurity /in the fiber, then it just doesn't make it, so no \amplification/regeneration is possible. (Regenerate _what_?) /But the quantum measurement issue, aside from the above, is an \interesting one. We have to be careful here (and I'm including /myself, not just using the royal "we"). It isn't clear to me that the \amplification/regeneration process counts as making a measurement, /from some recent work I've read (sorry, don't recall the references, \but could be a recent issue of "Scientific American"). In interference /measurements, the wave function collapses if individual photons are \counted and recorded (whatever "recorded" really means...) and the /interference pattern vanishes. If the photons are not counted and/or \recorded, the pattern reappears. /By analogy, it is not clear to me that a simple regeneration mechanism, \with no local observer or recording apparatus, will collapse the wave /function. I'm sorry I quoted so much, but let's think for a second: what is a regeneration mechanism going to do? Idea number one: It could act on an individual photon. This photon could have its energy per photon increaced. Except for doppler effects or possibly some wierd non-conservative electric/magnetic fields (and I'm just starting again, and can't remember if there are some obscure non-conservative electric fields), I don't think there are any methods that don't involve <<measurement>> of the photon. Please note that the known ways of "pumping" a photon's frequency, such as interaction with electrons in the orbitals of atoms in a crystal lattice, involve <<measurement>>. Please note I'm using the term <<measurement>> in brackets so that the physics-challenged here will realize that what is being discussed is the Q-M concept of measurement and not the sending out of some guy with a yardstick to look at photons. Another idea that occured to me is that the number of photons are being manipulated: one photon spawns many. As a practical example, check any image-intensifier tube. \Seems to me an experiment may have already been done along these /lines: separate fibers producing an interference pattern and then these \inline amps added...if the interference pattern remains, as I would expect, /then the amps/regenerators did not constitute a "measurement" in QM terms. I'm getting the impression of an optical-loop interferometer that relies on the timing of a photon's arrival as the first-order effect in the generation of an interference pattern. I'm not sure if it'll work, but I'm willing to bet there are some useful optical-loop interferometer experiments that don't rely on preserving all the states of the photons in question. Don't ring gyroscopes rely on measuring path length? Other than the two examples I mentioned above, the only things I could think of involved modifying quantum parameters themselves, which is what's supposed to be avoided, right? BTW, since I'm not on cypherpunks and am reading this sporadically thanks to news.hks.net (thanks guys!), could y'all email any responses to me? I think I need that refresher course in electrodynamics and Q-M pretty bad. \--Tim May /Boycott espionage-enabled software! \We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. /---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- \Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, /tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero \W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, /Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. \"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." I'd delete that but it's a work of art... Getting back to more real-world applications, anyone out there have any ideas why netscape's stock is still so high when all the stuff they came out with that was allegedly secure basically wasn't? And more immediate than that, I was thinking of ordering some textbooks using a borrowed credit card from a bookstore in Oregon. Is it safe now? ;-) If it turns out to not have been safe, can I sue Netscape for false advertizing, even if I knew it was false? Phil Phil Fraering "Nice shark... pgf(a)srl03.cacs.usl.edu _pretty_ shark..." ======================================================================== is it just me, or is everyone else having bsd flashbacks too?

1 0

Re: Remailers not heard from; info?
by Bruce Baugh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:52 PM 2/19/96 -0600, "David E. Smith" <dsmith(a)midwest.net> wrote: >Don't some remailers support the "Cutmarks" >header, which does essentially that? Yup. I clean forgot about it, truth to tell. -- Bruce Baugh bruce(a)aracnet.com http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce

1 0

San Diego CPunk Physical meet this Thursday
by Christian Claborne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- This Thursday!!! San Diego Area CPUNKS symposium Thursday, Nov. 7, 1996. Invitation to all Cypherpunks to join the San Diego crowd at "The Mission Cafe & Coffee Shop". We discuss cryptography and other related subjects, have the special cypherpunk dinner, and unwind after a long day at the grind stone. Don't forget to bring your public key fingerprint. If you can figure out how to get it on the back of a business card, that would be cool. If you want the suspicious crowd there to sign your key, bring two forms of ID. Michelle is going to bring her PGP fingerprint in for signature. Can you believe it? Hopefully Lance Cottrell will give us an update on Mixmaster and what's going on at San Diego's best ISP. This will probably be the last symposium of the year since December is normally quite crazzzzy. Place: The Mission Cafe & Coffee Shop 3795 Mission Bl in Mission Beach. 488-9060 Time:1800 Their Directions: 8 west to Mission Beach Ingram Exit Take west mission bay drive Go right on Mission Blvd. On the corner of San Jose and mission blvd. It is located between roller coaster and garnett. It's kind of 40s looking building... funky looking (their description, not mine) They serve stuff to eat, coffee stuff, and beer + wine stuff. See you there! New guy, bring your fingerprint. Drop me a note if you plan to attend... NOTE: My primary e-mail address has changed to use my own domain. You can reach me at "claborne(a)cyberthought.com". Permanently replace any other address that you may have for me. I am currently not subscribed to the CP list since my current internet connection is slow (I'm waiting for my ISDN connection. :) 2 -- C -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.0 Personal Edition iQEVAgUBMnz1eYP1MBWQ+9udAQEWiQf+MaNcptFKcb/VPDabtXn8cnfmGsQn3h0R mzFIiXcHzh+OG2JfaX/oKR7wXFbhTMbKX9EbnFz0/IZeRZx9EO9Q3IrXUXyzZLBg lSYKEs+cyUZc/3IIpRVXgD1PrUEjyjKkss3U9KQgsQpl8+E6vlefQkCdHpR/v7kZ T1GyE3LqP+GAmr0M52kQeLKdyW3Ev6YVr5VTaxFz2uXePdJkUXXNvAE/V+UjdZn8 4dB6Y3P/JTBzxdfF6KCcdGttoq65JEfQYBjuxi9OSSkmS4vAfy36gUjQf6oiNgJX JyvxTxn8MQ46/ggqsL0IprnwFX0S/VV+JjAMmIO4Tw8mOBFSDmGDWA== =D1nQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ... __o .. -\<, Claborne(a)CYBERTHOUGHT.com ...(*)/(*)._ Providing thoughts on your computing needs. http://www.CYBERTHOUGHT.com/cyberthought/ PGP Pub Key fingerprint = 7E BF 38 3F 24 A7 D1 B0 54 44 96 AA 10 D0 5D 51 Avail on Pub Key server. PGP-encrypted e-mail welcome! Dreams. They are just a "screen saver" for the brain.

1 0

beth mclean-knight
by mcleane＠stu.beloit.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

2 1

Senator Goodlatte's warning (from IEEE Software article, Nov, 1996)
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From IEEE Software, Nov, 1996, page 103, 2nd column: "Key Decisions Likely On Encryption Exports" by Stephen Barlas In fact, should he win, Clinton may go on the offensive. Goodlatte, whose bill is the House companion (HR 3011) to the Burns bill, said the Clinton administration told him that if the computer industry does not agree to a key management infrastructure, the President will seek legislation forcing Americans to use only encryption to which the government has access. Of course, this intention (to outlaw all non-GAK/KRAP) has been the desires of FBI/CIA/NSA all along, so no big surprise. I just would hate to see Congressional leaders cave in because of the "threat" of the administration's bozos attempting to introduce more restrictive legislation. The old "if we want 5, we demand 10, and we'll get 5 in the compromise" plan is really screwy and dishonest. Ern

1 0

Re: anonymous oddsman
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: > > At 04:55 PM 11/2/96 -0600, you wrote: > >Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > >> > Prices @ 09:21 GMT Sat 2nd Nov 96 > >> > +---------+----------------+----------------+ > >> > | | Ladbroke's | William Hill | > >> > +---------+----------------+----------------+ > >> > | Clinton | Not currently offered by either | > >> > | Dole | 6:1 | 10:1 | > >> > >> Whew! They are wide open for arbitrage! Suppose that at Ladbroke I sell > >> an obligation to pay $6 if Dole wins (they are apparently valuing it for > >> this much), collecting $1. At the same time, to hedge my exposure, I go > >> to "William Hill", and purchase their obligation to pay _me_ $10 if Bob > >> Dole wins, paying the $1 bill that I just got at Ladbroke's. > >> If bob dole loses, I lose nothing. If he wins, I make $4 out of air. > >> I wonder why the beting markets are so imperfect. > > Unless I've been misinterpreting the charts, you can't do it. > You can go to Ladbroke's and put down a pound on Dole, > and if Dole wins they'll give you 6. But if you want to bet that > Dole will lose and Clinton will win, they'll tell you > "Of course that's going to happen, silly. Keep your money." > Both houses are still willing to take the risk that Dole will win > and give you odds on it; neither house is willing to take any > additional risk involving paying people money if Clinton wins; > they've found all the takers they want for that. If I am not mistaken, your objection has merit. My argument, however, does not require one of the houses (Ladbroke's) accepts the reverse bets (which pay me money of Clinton wins). My argument runs like this. There are persons hanging around Landbroke who apparently think that if they give Landbroke $1 in return for the promise to pay them $6 if Dole wins, they get a good deal. It is these people together with "William Hill" whom we exploit. What I do is the following: I go to the Ladbroke's and offer to pay the gamblers not $6, but $6.01 if Dole wins. Being somewhat rational, these traders gamblers see a better deal than Ladbroke's offers, and give me their $1 bills. This is very simple. I take their $1 bills and run to "William Hill", where I take another side of the bet. If Clinton wins, I get nothing and lose nothing. If Dole wins, I gain $3.99 on every bet that these suckers agreed to make with me. That was the essense of arbitrage that I propose. Again, as I said, there is a way to make sure money on this situation, that is, to make money even if Klinton wins. The arbitrage strategy is the following: as before, I go to the Ladbroke's and offer to pay them not $6, but $6.01 if Dole wins. I take their $1 bills and go to "William Hill". I buy, however, LESS bets than dollar bills that I received. In particular, I buy $6.01 / $10.00 bets for each dollar that I receive. The remaining money $1(1-6.01/10) I simply take to my bank. This money is mine: if Clinton wins, nobody gets anything; if Dole wins, I get exactly enough money from "William Hill" to pay off my debts to the gamblers at Ladbroke's. - Igor.

2 1

Open letter to the NSA
by nelson＠crynwr.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You screwed up, guys. If, instead of restricting the export of strong crypto systems, you had instead encouraged it, you would have prevented the development of foreign crypto expertise. Look at South Africa: we banned them armaments, so they created their own arms industry. Now they're a serious arms exporter. You won in the short-term and lost in the long-term. Where is the wisdom needed to admit your mistake? Missing, I'd say. -russ <nelson(a)crynwr.com> http://www.crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr Software sells packet driver support | PGP ok 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | Corporations persuade; Potsdam, NY 13676 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | governments coerce.

1 0

Re: Secured RM ? (source) (bounce-fwd)
by futplex＠pseudonym.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From MAILER-DAEMON Thu Dec 14 21:05:20 1995 > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > 550 hellspawn.gate.net (tcp)... 550 Host unknown > 554 <root(a)HellSpawn.gate.net>... 550 Host unknown (Authoritative answer from name server) > > ----- Unsent message follows ----- > Subject: Re: Secured RM ? (source) > To: root(a)HellSpawn.gate.net (root) > > Have you considered using "pgp -w filename" ? It doesn't take wildcards, > but that's arguably a feature :) -Futplex <futplex(a)pseudonym.com>

1 0