- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?
by doug＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger(a)lehman.com> said: >Just one question, Doug -- in what sort of "Long Term" do you envision >individuals needing to be able to send MORE than several thousand >video signals worth of data simultaneously? Even if you put a camera >facing every corner of every nook of your house, [...] >you couldn't exhaust the potential bandwidth of a single fiber. This is highly misleading. Consider this. The Nyquist limit puts a fundamental limit on bandwidth; you cannot transmit more information over a channel than (roughly) the cycles-per-second rate of the carrier. If a fiber uses optical wavelengths, then that fiber cannot carry more than a single fully quality analog optical *pixel*. We get a lot more out of them than that by reducing the quality of the image being sent, e.g. by sending only 60 frame-samples per second, where each frame-sample is itself carved up into X * Y discrete pixels, and each pixel has a reduced dynamic range etc. My point in saying this is that you're speaking as if current day video standards are some kind of ultimate load on information transmission, whereas actually it's just something we've settled for. HDTV will vastly improve the quality of what we transmit without increasing bandwidth much, but it is still a far cry from what can be desirable. 60 frames per second makes it impossible to transmit adequate information about objects moving quickly across the frame of view that are easy to perceive in person. 1000 frames per second is desirable. 2D images are less desirable than 3D images. A minimum of about 300 horizontal views by perhaps 100 vertical views is desirable for 3D viewing. Assume compression of that 300 * 100 down to a simple factor of 300. Now notice that depth of field information is desirable for realism (without this everything is always in focus, good for some things, bad for others). Let's give that a simple factor of 10. I'll leave out arguments for increasing e.g. the dynamic range of contrast and color information, even though they are currently several orders of magnitude worse than the human eye can perceive. That all gives us roughly 10 * 300 * 10 = 30,000 times more information in a single *really* high quality "video" signal than we are currently accustomed to. Ultra high quality image transmission like this won't begin to become significantly widely used for quite a while. But it will happen eventually, because we'll be able to, and will perceive differences, etc. > What applications do you envision >that would require more bandwidth than this, even in twenty or thirty >years? Truly high quality video is one answer, even without taking into account the problems carriers would have in supporting the full bandwidth of a single fiber in switched networks (combinatorial explosion means that they can never support every possible connection simultaneously, therefore switching and multiplexing is here to stay). The more general answer is to just keep in mind that demand for uses of technology *always* outstrips the capacity of technology, if it is affordable. Demand is limited only because of economic issues. Doug

2 1

the Zen of Cyberspace
by an12070＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Yang said to Yin, ``why are you so weird? why can't you be more like me?'' ``because you are Yang, and I am Yin,'' said Yin. * * * I was walking along a path in a foreign city, and came upon a group of men carrying their king on their shoulders on a massive platform and weighty throne. They were struggling and sweating from the oppressive weight in the hot sun. ``Long live the Royal King'' they called out to me as I was about to pass. The king had haughty expression, and looked down on me sullenly and, I thought, somewhat belligerently. ``What do you think of my kingdom, traveller?'' he called out. I answered, ``Kind sir, I have been treated most generously by your gracious citizens. They have offered kind hospitality to a weary traveller. Truly, it is an oasis in the desert.'' ``Long live the Holy King!'' they called out. The king waved me away, and I bowed. But I was curious and followed the procession. The king made many strange contacts along the way, but that is another story. After a time he became bored, yawned, and fell asleep. The carriers continued to struggle with the sheer weight of his burden. ``How long have you been carrying the king?'' I whispered to one. ``Many years, traveller. Many years the people of this country have beared the weight of this tyrant.'' Of course, I was shocked at this. But other men echoed out upon hearing us, but whispered and were careful not to wake the slumbering king, who now had a steady stream of drool running down his chin and was snoring quite noisily. They told me horrible tales of his tyranny and crimes against the people. But they also told me of their great fear in challenging him. I was quite surprised -- It seems that each of the carriers shared a common vice with the king, and they were bound by the chain of their depravity. They were all greedy, and thirsted after the gold that he taunted them with every night in secret meetings in the palace chamber halls. Much of the populace saw many signs of the corruption but ``looked the other way''. Some had been executed for their dark discoveries. Many years later, I passed through the country again. I came upon the same sight -- the weary and toiling men carrying the heavy king upon their backs. By this time His Highness was quite fat and ugly from his vice and excess, and the carriers had great despair, desperation, and resignation etched in their faces. But they trudged on. That time, the king was apparently asleep when I found them. This time, he was quite inert and lifeless. ``How long have you been carrying the king?'' I said. ``Many years. Too numerous to remember. You get used to it after awhile.'' I talked to the men quietly. They still beared their great burden, prodded by their intense hunger for the gold of the king, which he had teased them with for many years. The king had tremendous power over people. Nevertheless, they began to laugh loudly at their king's stupidity and ignorance of their embezzlements. I wondered if the king was in turn embezzling from them. Suddenly, I realized the whole royalty was corrupt. The men laughed some more, oblivious to my epiphany, and one man jabbed the king accidentally with his flailing arms in the midst of his ridicule and mockery. The man was horrified. But the king did not stir. The other carriers were puzzled. They apparently had not looked at the king for some time, and suddenly realized that their highness had a pale pallor. The carrier who had jabbed him thought his body felt rather stiff. Suddenly, the night grew utterly cold. The king was dead. They were flabbergasted. ``How long has the king been dead?'' I asked. They did not know. With this, they suddenly dropped the massive platform in terror, and it broke and shattered with an ugly, ear-splitting noise. The king was lost within the rubble. I was injured by some fragments. Some of the carriers were crushed. Some cursed me. Some claimed that I was an evil omen that triggered the death of the king! Others fled. Many headed for the Castle, to steal whatever was left of the unguarded gold. They were astonished to find it was all counterfeited, and worthless. After many weeks, the entire populace finally realized they had been sustaining a black lie, and the country plunged into chaos. I was lucky to escape alive. * * * Yin said to Yang, ``why are you so weird? why can't you be more like me?'' ``because you are Yin, and I am Yang,'' said Yang. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

1 0

The Courtesies of Cypherpunks
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: jazz(a)hal.com (Jason Zions) >It's also common courtesy. You can have significant disagreements with a >person, yet still honor their simple requests. I owe no courtesy to someone who forfeits any respect in their atrocious misbehavior. This is as simple as the maxim, if you are a criminal your rights are diminished. If you mailbomb me, you have forfeited your `right to privacy'. If you email my postmaster a complaint about me before contacting me, you have forfeited your `right to privacy'. If you lie to me, you have forfeited your `right to privacy'. If you fail to adequately respond to my personal accusations of impropriety or criminality, especially meeting them with evasion or stonewalling, you have forfeited your `right to privacy'. If you have ever sent me mail as a Snake of Medusa or a Tentacle of a Monster, you have forfeited your `right to privacy' -- under ALL your pseudonyms and identities. If you ridiculously condone and endorse any such reprehensible behaviors under such patent idiocy as `respecting copyright' or `common courtesy', you have forfeited your `right to privacy'. If you have done any of the above to *anyone*, you have forfeited your `right to privacy' with respect to EVERYONE in your society! I also think you have forfeited your right to speak in that society as well -- maybe only temporarly -- but in situations where these kinds of outrageous behaviors are condoned by a corrupt moderator, no recourse except leaving or starting a new list is possible. In particularly obnoxious cases of criminal abuse, I will attempt to shame you into repentance by ridiculing you in front of people who appear to be your friends and community (presuming you actually have any), if all other measures have failed. (Even this may be ineffective, but if you have no shame, you have no humanity.) That is the Detweiler Code of Cyberspatial Ethics and Privacy. If it is incompatible with the Cypherpunk Code of Chivalry, my heartfelt condolences go out to you. Perhaps you would like to elucidate me as to which of the above practices require my RESPECT. As I was saying, psychopunks have elevated their religion of `privacy' and `pseudospoofing' to perverse extremes. ``The cypherpunk agenda is becoming indistinguishable from raw criminality.'' May you choke on your own poisons. Already, you wallow and drown in them and defile the naive, trusting, honest, and innocent daily on your list. Frankly, I can barely stand to be in the same Cyberspace with you. The `psychopunk core' of the cypherpunks is nothing but a fanatic, brainwashed religious cult. No wonder you guys identify with David Koresh. I assure you, future Cyberspace will not be big enough for the both of us. Go ahead, CENSOR me! For the crime of writing `FLAMEBAIT' or, equivalently, YELLING THE TRUTH. What depraved hypocrisy, that some psychopunks attempt to CENSOR ME indirectly by mailing my postmaster (who could care less about your sniveling whinings). You guys really do have *some* ethics, don't you? ``Don't ever DIRECTLY CENSOR ANYTHING!'' ``NEVER GET CAUGHT or be PERSONALLY ACCOUNTABLE or RESPONSIBLE for ANYTHING!''

4 4

pseudospoofing, copyrights, and ECPA
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Some losers are still assaulting me with claims that I failed to respect His Royal Eminence's privacy by revealing his mailbomb to the list, saying I was not polite or courteous. Please, hypocrites, go away. Where does this bizarre philosophy originate? Where do you guys get your `ethics', anyway? At least have the decency to codify them, sign your names to them, and stick them on an FTP site if you are going to spout this bizarre depravity. Next: Mr. Zions, while one of the `protect the mailbombers privacy' advocates, brought up some interesting points. Does the ECPA (the law regulating communications privacy) or the copyright laws apply to material that was written under a *pseudonymous* identity? I would consider this a grey area. A court test would be extremely fascinating. What if work was redistributed if printed under imaginary identities? the whole aspect of both of the laws involves *ownership* and *identity*. If ECPA or copyright laws are interpreted to protect pseudonymous identities, I propose they be amended and revised to afford no protection. (Legitimate variations like pseudonymity and anonymity should be protected in any case.) One man's opinion. Feel free to stone me some more. Have you figured out who my personal friends are yet? Have you found any nifty blackmail on me? I can't wait for the next sordid perversion.

1 0

pseudopools
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

One application of pseudospoofing, a particularly insideous and treacherous form, would be to create a `pool' of different accounts. Everyone in the group can negotiate with each other `behind the scenes' when to post from different accounts. This would be even more difficult to detect than regular pseudospoofing (and, IMHO, even that much more of a perversion) because all traces of consistency of identity are subverted and lost.

1 0

cypherpunk archives?
by an12070＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm looking for an official cypherpunk document on `pseudospoofing' -- I looked all over soda.berkeley.edu:/pub/cypherpunks, but couldn't find one anywhere. Does anyone have one, preferrably written or endorsed by E.Hughes or T.C.May? Also, any messages they have posted on the subject sought. I have some stuff, but they seem extremely reluctant to talk about it publicly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

1 0

Re: "Applied Cryptography" at Cody's
by Jef Poskanzer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>As of 14:30 today, Cody's in Berkeley has 4-1=3 copys of >"Applied Cryptography" by Schneier. One fewer as of 16:30. They had it hidden in the back room upstairs, but I made them file the rest in the math section. I'm about halfway through it now. It's pretty nifty! --- Jef

1 0

D. Barnes
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>You have become major pest, you have done more than anyone else to >disrupt this list and make it next to impossible for real work to get >done on it (including work that would help mitigate problems of the >kind you believe your "enemies" are perpetrating on you.) please, characterize this `work' and your own involvement in it. >we don't see pseudospoofing as a "danger" like you >do. Personally, I consider it a necessity. I like being able to hide >behind an anonymous identity (not that I do, mind you). I don't see >pseudospoofing as "constraining". On the contrary, I see it as >freeing us. oh.

1 0

Re: *hot* pseudospoofing ideas!
by Jef Poskanzer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>here's an interesting idea. Suppose that whenever cypherpunks in favor >of pseudospoofing emailed me, I put all their posts into a big pot.... Say.... Does anyone have an archive of Detweiler's messages handy? There's this nifty program called "travesty" that I suddenly have an urge to play with. --- Jef

1 0

A Glimmer of Light
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Some miscellaneous psychopunk (I forget who, they are all interchangeable) said >> <sigh> nobody is interested in preventing pseudospoofing here. the >> people who have most maneuvered themselves into a position to aid >> future cyberspace are instead constraining it. that's the point, isn't >> it? gosh, how could I have been so blind... > >I think its because we don't see pseudospoofing as a "danger" like you >do. Personally, I consider it a necessity. I like being able to hide >behind an anonymous identity (not that I do, mind you). I don't see >pseudospoofing as "constraining". On the contrary, I see it as >freeing us. wow! a break in the clouds! a breath of fresh air! who is `we'? please elaborate! This miscellaneous psychopunk is posting from MIT. Do you think his burdensome flesh-cucoon is in Boston? or California? AT LAST! HONESTY! (even if it is criminal or perverted) Psychopunks, I'm most impressed with this new atmosphere of open advocation of pseudoanonymity instead of all the black disinformation snippets about `true anonymity' and all the other nonsense about it not being widespread, no cypherpunks being personally involved, etc. for the dreary 10 months or so I've been here. What trouble and heartache for all of us you have caused me in pretending it isn't! Finally, they Come Out of the Closet. Imagine -- having to hide in your own neighborhood for so long. Really, it's all right. There, there. When will the articles on Pseudospoofing come out in Wired and NYT? Oh, let's see, there's Newsweek and all those other places too. Please, tell me, I'm really in a tizzy. I'll have to call Mr. Kelly and Mr. Markoff and tell them of your new openness. I'm sure they will be quite interested! So, I would like to collect a list of all the Psychopunks who are PSEUDOSPOOFERS and PROUD OF IT. Please, describe your lovely techniques, all the pain and victimization you have gone through from your tormenters (like me), and how you are going to Change the World so that Pseudospoofers can Live without Harassment. `Live and Let Live'. Sort of like Gay Pride. When are you going to stick it in your charter, anyway? How pseudospoofing == privacy == anonymity == pseudoanonymity == pseudonymity == holy liberation == bliss? What a delicious mystery. Life a SF book by Card. What a Card. Also, I'm still waiting for some kind of comment from those *fabulous* leaders of yours. They're so coy with me. They've been flirting with me since I've been on the list. It's really sexy and erotic, actually, the way they strut around. You can look, but you can't touch! They're real masters at the dance. Ooooooh... just FABULOUTHS.

1 0