- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:14 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >Several people have also commented on this, that their filters are still >working overtime. As it should be, really, as no moderator can make the >list match any given person's preferences. > >(Personally, I'm not even convinced filters are essential. It takes no >longer than 5 seconds to glance at a message and know whether to scrap it >or not. Granted, it takes a bit of time to download, especially at slower >modem speeds. But whether Sandy's censorship is producing any significant >"savings" depends on how many messages he's sorting into each >pile...clearly if 20% or less of the total posts are being filtered out, >then the savings are ignorable. That might not be quite true, or at least not complete. Another effect is that the new structure of the list may deter some of the flamers from posting, when they don't think their notes will be seen on the moderated list. In any case, however, I agree that spam and trash are easy to filter out. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

John Gilmore / What a _Lamer_!
by Larry Johnson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Gilmore wrote: > Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this > month. I havent chosen nothing like that. I read all the stuff from all the messages from before modernation and since then and nobody got to choose nothing. You told them what they were going to gwet and thats what they got. Anybody that made it plain that they werent happy got thrown in the trashcan and labled as being a flamer. > I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are > conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; > 42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. 1311 addresses that you stole for your censored list. Nobvody subscribved to cypherpunks-censored. You put them there cause its you decided it was your list an dyou could put people where you wanted even if they didnt like it. My uncle calls it the cyperpunks-Auschwitz list. Thats what subdir he keeps it in in his Dorks dir. > The cypherpunks list was unusable > for this kind of discussion, only a month ago. It's usable now. I could use it before and Im just a kid but Im not a lamer. Maybe you should call the list you stole cypherpunks-lamers. > I'm definitely bugged by the community's attitude toward my > "censorship". I know you are or else you wouldna thrown cypherpunks honest and truthful feelings in the flames-crapper. > Rather than being glad that someone, anyone, was doing > something about the major problem on the list, 99% of the reaction was > to create even more ill-considered, emotional flamage. I read a lot of flamessages which people put a lot of their thouhgts into bu t they were emotional cause people get like that when someone doo-doos on them. > *I* didn't > make the signal/noise get worse at that point -- *you-all* did. You dont make any signal/noise at all since you dont even send messages to the list. (except when you want tell bs about how people "chose" Sandy to be their dictator when they didnt) > "Asking the list what to do" was clearly not a useful > option. Not necessary either if your a dictator. > As Dale suggests, I > wasn't about to waste my time reading the whole list in real time and > passing judgement on the postings. Sandy was, for a month. Howcum reading the list is a wast eof your time but making decisions for ecveryone on the cypherpunks isnt? > To some it seemed that, now that they were in actual possession of > it, freedom was a more serious thing than they had expected to > find it. > > Most of the people on the list haven't bothered to face that freedom. 1311 ofg them? Howcum you just stole all of the list people for your censored list? I think that was real stupid unless you just didnt care if people would know that your were stealing the list for yourself. It was really rotten to call pewople flamers just cause they complained. > Be responsible for setting your society's privacy policy -- without > knowing whether you are right. Thats what those GAK guys are for and all those secret govbernment guys that want there not to be a cypherpunks anymore. > Shall I post you an Emancipation Proclamation -- as if you needed one? No you already done too much. > The experiment will be over in a few weeks. Who's going to take over > deciding how to run the list, and running it? I will. Im just a kid but I cant do any worse than already. > the immortal words of Lazarus Long, "PIPE DOWN!". Im a kid so I get told to shut up all the time but I dont. > PS: Can we talk about crypto too? What do you mean _we_ white man? (thats a joke) You havent talked about nothing on the list except how your not a bad guy for pushing people areound into the lists where you want them whether they like it or not. You stole my uncles subsribing to the cypherpunks list and made him a censored person. He had to break out to go to the uncensored list. I think your a lamer. Human Gus-Peter

1 0

Re: "alt.cypherpunks" people?
by Jeremey Barrett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > John Gilmore urges action, or piping down... well lets start with > discussion of whether one possible action is appropriate, and useful > (piping down is not an option:-): > > What do people think of starting an alt.cypherpunks USENET newsgroup? As an additional forum, it's not a bad idea, with the exception that it may draw some people away from the mailing list, and reduce the already- slim signal on the list. USENET is less accessible than email, and given the goals of cypherpunks, the more accessible the medium the better. I have crap news access 99% of the time, and I imagine a significant portion of the list is in a similar situation. Also, the tools for news reading are not well-suited for filtering, either manual or automatic. > 3. USENET distribution is likely less efficient of overall bandwidth > > 4. News propogation times are often poor (Exeter univ. receives news > about a week late) This is a real killer in my view. I have > another news server I can access at the moment, but not everyone > may have access to a reasonable news server. > > 5. News access is more complex for some people. Some alt newsgroups > are not carried by some servers. Perhaps news-to-mail and > mail-to-news gateway would solve these problems. These 3 are fatal IMO. The distribution of cypherpunks would become much more haphazard and might fail altogether in places. Some people will be reading long threads days after they are dead. > Coderpunks is a reasonable list, I'm not sure that it is moderated as > such, but if you breach etiquette (discussion of politics, even when > perpetrated by respected cryptographers, or by people discussing the > implications of breaking DES, rather than the strict coding questions) > they get Futplex-grams, which I find slightly annoying. > > Cryptography(a)c2.net is again reasonable, and gained back some of the > original people who quit cypherpunks over the years due to noise. > Cryptography is moderated. (Or is moderated when Perry thinks it > would benefit from moderation, so that may change). Agreed. These lists _are_ the alternative to the "open" cypherpunks list. If a moderated cypherpunks is to be started, great, but it should be another list, not _the_ cypherpunks list. Moderation, even with the best intentions, is subjective, and therefore has no place on a list such as cypherpunks. If this is really an experiment, at the end of the month the list should become unmoderated, and a moderated list created. Then we can see how many people switch in that direction. I imagine it would be a similar number to those that switched to the unedited list. > What's left is attempting to stop government restrictions and backdoors, > and deploying the many complex peices of software for which there exists > uses and demands. There is still much to be done. The cypherpunks list has plenty of reason for being. As is, it 1) is still used as a forum for good discussion, despite the noise, and 2) is an invaluable resource for information retrieval and dispersal. The list should not be killed or moved IMO, and moderation should occur on other lists, not the main one. - -- =-----------------------------------------------------------------------= Jeremey Barrett VeriWeb Internet Corp. Senior Software Engineer http://www.veriweb.com/ PGP Key fingerprint = 3B 42 1E D4 4B 17 0D 80 DC 59 6F 59 04 C3 83 64 =-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface iQCVAwUBMvgVuy/fy+vkqMxNAQGFcgQAiZ0mKRTRkOYCYKlyAQrbUA0iHo1j1IiI DqJzLEXWX1AwYbRg4S4CRowey9+uMMbSo6nfONc5y7Wz7O3MvmLbGdmOCKaLNR56 7/TXY4Rj7yk8odKN3s4aYZ61vTMqMFdqzo42q5dNTQyL5haM1ugwgjg1bS5u3ski venMQtFa8t4= =aIej -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Announcing ZDNet Exclusives!
by announce＠lists.zdnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--------------------------------------------------------- ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/3/97 --------------------------------------------------------- Greetings from ZDNet! We're pleased to announce a FREE gift to our loyal community of Web users: the launch of ZDNet Exclusives, the Web's first FREE collection of innovative software utilities, developed for our members by ZDNet and its renowned Software Library team! ZDNet Exclusives require no registration fees; they are absolutely FREE to all the members of the ZDNet community. Over 50 programs are available for download right now at: http://www.hotfiles.com/exclusiv.html The new ZDNet Exclusives collection features many invaluable utilities to make computing easier as well as some entertaining programs to make it more fun; including: *CookieMaster* Enables users to identify, view and opt to delete the Web cookies placed on their hard drives by the Web sites they've visited. *Gates Does Windows 95* An all-time favorite screen saver that depicts Bill Gates washing windows. *Shoebox PIM* An easy way to organize and store all of that personal information you'd be likely to save in a shoebox. * Plus, many more!* Log on to ZDNet and start downloading your FREE ZDNet Exclusives today! Let us know what you think. We have more ZDNet Exclusives under development and would appreciate your feedback. ---Preston Gralla Executive Editor The ZDNet Software Library ________________________________________________ ZDNet Announcements are periodic notices of new features, special events and free offers available to members of ZDNet. --To subscribe to ZDNet Announcements, please send mail to: announce-on(a)lists.zdnet.com You can leave the subject and body blank. --To unsubscribe to ZDNet Announcements, please send mail to: announce-off(a)lists.zdnet.com You can leave the subject and body blank. ________________________________________________ Powered by Mercury Mail: http://www.merc.com

1 0

Harvard Symposium
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:10:17 -0800 From: jmuller(a)brobeck.com (John D. Muller) Subject: Harvard Symposium To: rah(a)shipwright.com Bob: I don't recall seeing this on e$pam and thought it might be of interest. What with the Boston connection, it's clearly a dcsb-worthy item, and I'll send it to them separately. ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: [NET-LAWYERS] HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY Author: "K. Dueker" <kdueker(a)LAW.HARVARD.EDU> at internet Date: 2/4/97 1:00 AM [CROSS-POSTED; PLEASE FORGIVE DUPLICATION] PRESS RELEASE Symposium: Crime & Technology Law Enforcement Technology % Cybercrime % Electronic Commerce (Cambridge, Massachusetts) - The Harvard Journal of Law & Technology is pleased to announce its Spring Symposium: "Crime & Technology." The Symposium will be held Saturday, March 15, 1997, in the Ames Courtroom at the Harvard Law School in Cambridge, MA. The Symposium will consist of two moderated panel discussions, as well as several presentations. The morning session is expected to focus on "Search, Seizure, and Surveillance Technology," while the afternoon session will focus on "The Risks of Electronic Banking & Commerce." Admission to the Symposium is free to all Harvard affiliates (with valid Harvard ID), $15 for all other students, $30 for public sector professionals, and $100 for private sector professionals. The Spring Issue of the Journal will include articles covering the broad topic of "Crime and Technology." For additional information about the Symposium or the Journal, contact Symposium Editor Belinda Juran, by e-mail at juran(a)law.harvard.edu, or by phone at the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology offices at 617-495-3606 or 617-493-7949. ABOUT THE JOURNAL: The Harvard Journal of Law & Technology is a leading scholarly publication for articles addressing the many diverse interstices of science and technology with law and society. We have published articles by law professors, practitioners, business leaders, and politicians on varied topics including biotechnology, computers, international trade, technology transfer, intellectual property, medical technologies, and telecommunications. These and other subjects are some of the most exciting and rapidly developing areas of the law, and we believe that the dialogue provided by the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology will help to shape the future of this important field. We welcome submissions of articles, case comments, or book reviews addressing the relationship of law and technology. SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION: For additional information, please contact the Journal at the address below. The Journal publishes three issues each year. To subscribe to the Journal's upcoming issues in Volume 10, please send the Journal a check for U.S. $45.00 (foreign orders $50.00) to the address below. To obtain the issue discussed above or back issues, please send the Journal a check for $35.00 with a note indicating the desired issue (i.e., "Vol. 9 No. 2"). Media Contact: Kenneth S. Dueker, Communications Editor Release Date: February 04, 1997. ************************************************************************* Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Publications Center Harvard Law School Cambridge, MA 02138 Telephone: (617) 495-3606 E-Mail: jolt(a)law.harvard.edu WWW: http://www.law.harvard.edu/home/jolt/ ************************************************************************* --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/

1 0

re: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc * Reputation Capital
by Name Withheld by Request 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I found this post from Mr Gilmore deeply disturbing, and I thought I'd take this chance to, as someone recently said, "Fly with the Eagles." John Gilmore said: >Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this >month. I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are >conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; >42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. Forty people >cared enough to read every posting; the other thousand either wanted >to try the experiment -- or didn't care enough to send an email >message. Which, as we all know, is a very low threshold. Careful. The statistics you are throwing around here are misleading. So if 1350, say, subscribers were subscribed to an unmoderated cypherpunks list, what would that tell you? As has been pointed out, beaten to death, and generally repeated: there are already filtered c'punks lists. By filtering the main list, you are just making your own life difficult and corrupting the reputation capital of "cypherpunks", and the results are far from conclusive. >all I want is something that works. The cypherpunks list was unusable >for this kind of discussion, only a month ago. It's usable now. > >I'm definitely bugged by the community's attitude toward my >"censorship". Rather than being glad that someone, anyone, was doing >something about the major problem on the list, 99% of the reaction was >to create even more ill-considered, emotional flamage. *I* didn't >make the signal/noise get worse at that point -- *you-all* did. Again, maybe that 99% is trying to tell you something? Maybe there is some provocation for this outpouring of "emotional flamage." Also, here you claim that the s/n ratio is worse than before, but above you said that the "moderation" has made the list usable. These two statements seem contradictory. >Perhaps at that point I should have shut down the list, as Lucky is >now suggesting. "Asking the list what to do" was clearly not a useful >option. Sandy cared enough about the community to make some concrete Not a useful option? Why not? If there aren't any ideas left in this community, I'm with Lucky. Pull the plug. >gratifying. You-all remind me of a passage from Booker T. >Washington's book _Up From Slavery_, describing what happened on the >night that news of the Emancipation Proclamation reached the South: <quote snipped> >Most of the people on the list haven't bothered to face that freedom. >Your de-facto "leaders" have faced it for you. It is a more serious "You clearly don't take your freedom seriously. Now try a month without it." >Start a mailing list on another site! Move this list to somewhere! >Create and nurture an alt group! Make an independent moderated list My problem with this is that you are currently holding the reputation capital tied up in the name "cypherpunks" hostage. If hosting this discussion forum has grown so tiring, then you are free to pull the plug in a heartbeat. I've heard a few even go so far as to ask "what's in a name" when others get so upset about the list called "cypherpunks" being moderated. Well, I'll tell you. Reputation capital. Thats why so many lurkers have waded through the muck for so long. I've seen the crown jewels that have surfaced here in the past, and spread the word. "Cypherpunks" was where the action was. It was fast and loose and inhabited by a prolific core of sharp minds. Old memes die hard, as is evidenced every time we see a warning about the "Goodtimes Virus." >The experiment will be over in a few weeks. Who's going to take over >deciding how to run the list, and running it? As I said, if you don't want the list anymore, pull the plug. It will pop up again elsewhere and you need never worry about it again. This post from Mr Gilmore certainly is revealing. Perhaps inevitably, he has assumed the traditional paternal role of authority when its motives and/or power to regulate is questioned. Golem

1 0

Re: Getting into MIT is impossible
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Erland van Lidth de Jeude is a MIT grad. He played the big badass in "Stir Crazy." Computer science major, BTW. At 07:37 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Clint Barnett wrote: >wasn't Dolph Lundgren an MIT grad? I seem to remember something about him >having a degree in Chemical Engineering or something along those lines. > >clint barnett >lord of the cosmos >emily carr institute > >On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Anonymous wrote: > >> >> >> According to Rick Osborne: >> >> "I disagree and can speak from experience. I was denied admission to MIT >> even thought I had a 3.82 GPA, 1440 SAT (one try), and had taken 9 AP tests >> with two 5's, four 4's, two 3's, and one 2. As for being well-rounded, I >> was on several academic teams, sang in Chorus, acted and stage managed in >> Drama, and played Tennis." >> >> People get into MIT--or don't get into MIT--for lots of reasons. Most >> intelligent people apply to several schools, knowing that admissions >> practices are subject to the vagaries of reality. >> >> In my case, my SATs were about 1500, with some 800s in achievement tests. >> And the usual bullshit high school clubs, political offices, etc. etc. I >> was accepted by MIT, but not by Caltech. I didn't lose any sleep over the >> way things turned out. >> >> And I decided not to go to MIT, either. >> >> "The only thing I didn't have that the next MIT applicant had was money. I >> made the mistake of letting them know that I was dirt poor and would need >> full aid/grants/etc, and to quote "The Great Escape" it was "Zzzt! To the >> Russian front!"" >> >> My guess is that "other factors" were involved. >> >> I noted with some interest, but little surprise, that the guy claiming MIT >> required a 4.0 GPA and a 1600 combined SAT score could barely spell, and >> had major problems making a coherent point. Methinks this is why MIT >> rejected him, not his lack of a "1600." >> >> ">For what it's worth, I wanted to go to MIT my sophomore year in high >> >school, too >> >> "Lucky you. It had been a dream of mine since I was an annoying >> overachiever of 6. Sux to be white trash, I guess." >> >> MIT offered me a substantial economic aid package, in the form of loans, >> grants, and various campus jobs. What does this tell you? >> >> "MIT may be a great school, but they tend to be snooty assholes for the most >> part. (DISCLAIMER: Not all MIT grads/attendees are necessarily "snooty >> assholes", I'm just saying that I've yet to meet one that wasn't.) >> >> I've known about a dozen or so MIT grads, and only one of them was a snooty >> asshole, and it was a _she_, one of the first MIT women grads (and she was >> _very_ impressed by this). >> >> Most MIT grads are perfectly reasonable. >> >> Xanthar >> >> >> >> >> -- >> > > > Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: AltaVista Tunnel
by Anil Das 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Rick Osborne wrote: > > He triumphantly exclaimed that the encryption was 128-bit, but when > I said "128-bit what?" he cowered and muttered that he didn't know and went > on with his little speech. The rest of my crypto-specific questions met > with equal dark stares. And these are the people setting industry standards... I should be happy that you are bashing a competitor and all, but give them a break, OK? The marketing dweeb who has to do product pitches on roadshows is not the same as the design engineer who designs the system and sets technical standards. There can be a big difference in technical knowledge about the product, and even basic competency, between the two. -- Anil Das

1 0

hoho
by Igor Chudov ＠ home 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

haha

1 0

Re: More on Cellular Encryption Docs
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:31 PM 2/1/97 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >At 04:10 PM 2/1/97 -0500, John Young wrote: >>Here's more on the controlled documents for cellular encryption >>from TIA/EIA we described in a 26 January post to cpunks: >... >> TR45.0.A >> Common Cryptographic Algorithms, Revision B >> June 21, 1995, 72 pp. (With ITAR notice on every page) > >Of course, ITAR as recently modified says it's ok to send this >stuff overseas to foreigners, as long as it's on paper. >There may be separate restrictions on sending it, or on copying, >but they're based on copyright or contractual non-disclosure. Given that high-density inkjet printers can do 600x600 dpi resolution, it should be possible to achieve the equivalent of 100x100 bpi of easily-recoverable data on ordinary paper. That's about 800 kilobits, or 100 kilobytes. What does ITAR say about this? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0