Re: CDT Policy Post 2.27 - No New News on Crypto: Gore Restates
At 06:05 PM 7/14/96 -0700, David Sternlight wrote:
This post is a courtesy to others who may have been expecting more.
It's not that we're expecting more...it's just that we're hoping for BETTER.
It's a one-time statement to this list, which I've just joined, of my current practice: Silence does not constitute assent. David
Well, that's where you're confused. Our positions are not morally equivalent. Despite trying to hide behind the smokescreen of calling the government's GAK position "voluntary," we all know that they are trying to misuse their influence to gently force us to use GAK, if by no other means that forcing the taxpayer to pay for the system as they have done already. The opponents of GAK, on the other hand, are not denying to anyone the right to implement a truly voluntary "key-escrow" system, or more likely many privately operating ones. However, such systems will be a service for the customer, not the government, and the key will almost certainly not be provided to the government on request, and in fact the key will likely be stored in an encrypted form that the government won't be able to use. Quite simply, we do not require your "assent." You should be trying to get OURS. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com
On Mon, 15 Jul 1996, jim bell wrote:
This post is a courtesy to others who may have been expecting more.
It's not that we're expecting more...it's just that we're hoping for BETTER.
It's a one-time statement to this list, which I've just joined, of my current practice: Silence does not constitute assent. David
Well, that's where you're confused. Our positions are not morally equivalent. Despite trying to hide behind the smokescreen of calling the government's GAK position "voluntary," we all know that they are trying to misuse their influence to gently force us to use GAK, if by no other means that forcing the taxpayer to pay for the system as they have done already.
Geezzzz, here we go.... One of the blessings of c'punks was that it was not 'worthy' of the time of several professional flame-baiters who are fairly well-known on the 'Net, in particular, David Sternlight. Now, however, that seems to have changed. If everyone thought things were weird around here with Detweiler, just wait until you see DS's stuff.... Aside from the now-infamous "Who is David Sternlight, REALLY?" and "Who does Sternlight REALLY work for" multi-generational, gigabyte-consuming, bandwidth-devastating threads [search usenet archives for several YEARS worth of traffic on these subjects] that have already graced the Internet (note that Sternlight actually had his OWN usenet newsgroup), there's the fear that DS will start a flame thrower exchange with anyone, regardless of topic. AND, he'll keep posting about it. Relentlessly. After seeing what happened to sci.crypt (it was essentially wrecked for anyone without killfile capability), I'd caution the c'punkers (particularly the more vocal ones) to NOT TAKE THE BAIT. It's only natural that Perry, Jim, and the others be the first to take exception to DS's stuff. It's probably only going to get worse as DS is the consummate flame king and he is at least as relentless as Detweiler. God bless 'em, but it's time to add another line to the c'punks net.loon warning file. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Just as the strength of the Internet is |Mark Aldrich | |chaos, so the strength of our liberty |GRCI INFOSEC Engineering | |depends upon the chaos and cacophony of |maldrich@grci.com | |the unfettered speech the First Amendment|MAldrich@dockmaster.ncsc.mil | |protects - District Judge Stewart Dalzell| | |_______________________________________________________________________| |The author is PGP Empowered. Public key at: finger maldrich@grci.com | | The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author | | and my employer gets no credit for them whatsoever. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modems on stun... "Mark O. Aldrich" <maldrich@grci.com> writes: ...
After seeing what happened to sci.crypt (it was essentially wrecked for anyone without killfile capability), I'd caution the c'punkers (particularly the more vocal ones) to NOT TAKE THE BAIT. It's only natural that Perry, Jim, and the others be the first to take exception to DS's stuff. It's probably only going to get worse as DS is the consummate flame king and he is at least as relentless as Detweiler.
I already got some shit from DS. I saw right away that he's an asshole, so I won't be responding to anything {he|she|it} says. What a maroon. I think Lance Deitweller is much smarter and more coherent. I exchanged some e-mails with and and he sounds like a very reasonable and nice guy. Thanks for the warning, --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Some live in the conversation in their head and require that everything be spelled out. Very well, then: At 10:58 AM -0700 7/15/96, jim bell wrote:
At 06:05 PM 7/14/96 -0700, David Sternlight wrote:
This post is a courtesy to others who may have been expecting more.
It's not that we're expecting more...it's just that we're hoping for BETTER.
"More" in the sense of a response to your personal attacks.
It's a one-time statement to this list, which I've just joined, of my current practice: Silence does not constitute assent. David
Well, that's where you're confused. Our positions are not morally equivalent.
Morality has nothing to do with it. The instant dispute is over facts. And you have no idea what my position on GAK is, judging from your personal attacks. I'll help you out. I do not object to it domestically as long as it is voluntary, that restriction is hard-coded into the rules and laws, and there are real choices at least initially. ("Trust everyone and always cut the cards.") Whether I then use it or not is my business, though it's no secret that I'd use a non-GAK system in preference were it available and an Internet standard. I trust the market and my fellow citizens, and if they rush to GAK because of superior features or some such and non-GAK dies on the vine because it is poorly implemented or poorly marketed, that's the way freedom works. You can't compel others to user YOUR favorite system just so you can have the benefits from it you want, nor should others try to suppress your favorites. That sword cuts both ways--vis a vis the government's favorites. They shouldn't try to compel what thye like, nor should they suppress what they don't unless the people's representatives have legislated (as for example in the case of the authority for ITAR) and the matter is Constitutional. I think foreign governments' crypto policies to be none of my business--though I know some other Americans love to wrap themselves in high moral raiment and preach on the topic to such foreign governments, and many foreigners with motes in their own eyes like to do that to us. I have a personal opinion in the matter which is likely the same as yours, but do not feel entitled to burden others with that since it's so much ineffectual chin music.
Despite trying to hide behind the smokescreen of calling the government's GAK position "voluntary," we all know that they are trying to misuse their influence to gently force us to use GAK, if by no other means that forcing the taxpayer to pay for the system as they have done already.
I agree, though I would not have phrased it in such an offensive way. This isn't some conspiracy of evil but people with a legitimate policy disagreement.
The opponents of GAK, on the other hand, are not denying to anyone the
right
to implement a truly voluntary "key-escrow" system, or more likely many privately operating ones.
I disagree again. It is evident from the effort to shoot down Clipper I, which WAS voluntary, that this is another case of your version of "voluntary". If an offeror, even the government, offers something voluntary and you don't like it, you attempt to suppress it. It's kinda like "freedom of speech only for those who agree with me".
However, such systems will be a service for the customer, not the government, and the key will almost certainly not be provided to the government on request, and in fact the key will likely be stored in an encrypted form that the government won't be able to use.
To the contrary, business records are always available on legitimate subpoena by the government, and this would include escrowed keys. YOU don't have to like it, but it's the law.
Quite simply, we do not require your "assent." You should be trying to get
OURS.
"Silence does not constitute assent" to your personal attacks, your policy assertions, and what I think to be your misrepresentations of fact. I was not speaking of assent to GAK in that sentence. I think your attempt to pseudospeciate me and create an "us and him" situation in this group is bound to fail with those who have paid attention to what I think and say, particularly my most recent thinking. On many matters we are agreed at bottom. However, I place high value on policy and strategy advocacies that are content-robust and work, in preference to ineffectual ones that merely make one feel good. Further, I do not believe one should suppress criticism of one's allies when they are doing a sloppy or wrong-headed job of things. That's just opening the door to a failure instead of sharpening things up to improve the chances of a success. The radical feminists' "Sisterhood, right or wrong" is not my motto. When you're right, you're right and I support you, and when I think you're wrong I won't hesitate to point it out. David -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMequPEwgH+NYrQ81AQG56AP/VPJC454h+OWdCZ0i8BajL+7YtZ3z3QkR foCov4Fy4msK45uwaNCnHnIwqvwNksoZRVCDValY74r9GAB5f/Em5TFWVxe8WLz8 44hZ739RfPBKJH1F7M/JUY7RMwIwxsFtaYWt89pwc9mZyXwoHT5xXdbojXakf8HI MRLTEaqbB8M= =1WC/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
At 4:27 PM -0700 7/15/96, Mark O. Aldrich wrote:
One of the blessings of c'punks was that it was not 'worthy' of the time of several professional flame-baiters who are fairly well-known on the 'Net, in particular, David Sternlight. Now, however, that seems to have changed. If everyone thought things were weird around here with Detweiler, just wait until you see DS's stuff....
And another thing. The reason I've not joined this group earlier had nothing to do with "worthy". It was because after discussion a year or so ago, Tim May suggested to me via e-mail that it would just generate a lot of controversy, at a time when people were so polarized that they couldn't hear each other and thus my presence here would serve no useful purpose. I took Tim's advice and stayed out. I thought that by now the more extreme dogmatists among you would have matured, especially given the evidence generated by the real world about how things are and are going if nothing rational and effective is done to stop it. Some of you have met me at Crypto and found I'm not the devil incarnate. Some of you know that we share many (but not all) policy views in common. The presenting symptom for my joining now was a copy of a post by an MIT professor I respect to this group, which a colleague sent me. Perhaps I was too hasty in my belief that we can begin to hear each other. David
How does one set up a kill-file for a mailing list? I run a Linux box with sendmail and use the MH mail system. My best guess is that I will have to install procmail, but would like your advice before going to a lot of labor. I supose that it would be easier just to unsubscribe from cypherpunks, but that would be rather self-defeating. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH Internet: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu
How does one set up a kill-file for a mailing list? I run a Linux box with sendmail and use the MH mail system.
My best guess is that I will have to install procmail, but would like your advice before going to a lot of labor.
procmail is a very effective and good way, and it doesn't require a lot of effort. Just download, configure, compile, and install. It's fairly mindless. Just follow the install instructions. -- ____________________________________________________________________________ Doug Hughes Engineering Network Services System/Net Admin Auburn University doug@eng.auburn.edu
"Peter D. Junger" writes:
How does one set up a kill-file for a mailing list? I run a Linux box with sendmail and use the MH mail system.
My best guess is that I will have to install procmail, but would like your advice before going to a lot of labor.
You can use procmail. If you use MH, you can also use a combination of "pick" and "rmm" to nuke a specified list of users before going through your mail. Perry
Perry E. Metzger wrote:
"Peter D. Junger" writes:
How does one set up a kill-file for a mailing list? I run a Linux box with sendmail and use the MH mail system.
My best guess is that I will have to install procmail, but would like your advice before going to a lot of labor.
You can use procmail. If you use MH, you can also use a combination of "pick" and "rmm" to nuke a specified list of users before going through your mail.
Here's the procmailrc recipe that I use for cypherpunks: :0 * ^(Sender|From): owner-cypherpunks@toad.com { :0 * ? fgrep -q -i -f $HOME/.procmail/killfile.cpunks /dev/null :0: $CRYPTO } All you have to do add a new entry to your killfile is to add a new line to te file ~/.procmail/killfile.cpunks which is real easy. - Igor.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- "Peter D. Junger" <junger@pdj2-ra.F-REMOTE.CWRU.Edu> wrote something like:
How does one set up a kill-file for a mailing list? I run a Linux box with sendmail and use the MH mail system.
My best guess is that I will have to install procmail, but would like your advice before going to a lot of labor.
No, mh is sufficient for all your mail handling needs. "man slocal" for starters. For advanced stuff you can always write a script that takes messages and chews on them and either sends them to rcvstore or to /dev/null. I think I'll write a script that parses each letter looking for text from D**** S********* and adds that text to my "D**** S********* Travesty Database". Then it will select random sentences from that database and construct long cascade insult- fests between D**** S********* and himself and mail them to cypherpunks via an anonymous remailer. Just kidding. I think I'll write a script which globally searches and replaces "D**** S*********" with "Duncan Frissell" in my cpunks folder. Just kidding again. Okay bye. Bryce -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2 iQB1AwUBMevpSEjbHy8sKZitAQHR1gL/Ye/o58xe7DiApoS2WzPwnHpnj4JfV0Fb FYxeaFcRaZy98ub3tt6bqrf5dM8Q6G4/sFnofUhdJqe7G1N4awuI7Lab/fIRPmDV lEMQ2S/ze1tM9Sg0KhjZpezgxfZsN/pX =KdY+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
At 10:54 AM -0700 7/16/96, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
a suggestion: get a pseudonym!
In my opinion (it's not "the truth") using a pseudonym except in force majeure circumstances such as a rape counseling group is cowardly. I think people should stand behind what they say, and the notion of Detweiler's having arguments with himself pseudonymously would be hilarious if it were not pathetic. In any case it wouldn't work for me since I suspect my literary style is sufficiently distinctive (at least for this sort of group) that I'd be spotted in a short time and then be the victim of a bunch of nasty "what have you got to hide" posts. And I'm not going to twist myself into a pretzel, stylistically speaking, just so some thug's nastiness can be avoided. I trust the good sense of wiser readers, and as Harry Truman said... David
And another thing. The reason I've not joined this group earlier had nothing to do with "worthy". It was because after discussion a year or so ago, Tim May suggested to me via e-mail that it would just generate a lot of controversy, at a time when people were so polarized that they couldn't hear each other and thus my presence here would serve no useful purpose. I took Tim's advice and stayed out.
frankly I think a mailing list that can't tolerate informed but dissenting views such as your own without self-destructing has an inherent problem that exists independent of your participation. perhaps it is a valuable public service to expose such a flaw. at least, that's the hacker spirit. as for TCM recommending you not join, I'm disappointed to hear anyone so ostensibly and vocally committed to free speech would tell anyone that their presence would be "disruptive" or "controversial" and recommend against it.
I thought that by now the more extreme dogmatists among you would have matured, especially given the evidence generated by the real world about how things are and are going if nothing rational and effective is done to stop it. Some of you have met me at Crypto and found I'm not the devil incarnate. Some of you know that we share many (but not all) policy views in common.
well, I find you to have mellowed yourself after a legendary amount of back and forth in cyberspace, although I would still consider some of your own views "dogmatic" as you term it.
The presenting symptom for my joining now was a copy of a post by an MIT professor I respect to this group, which a colleague sent me. Perhaps I was too hasty in my belief that we can begin to hear each other.
I personally find your GAK positions superior to those of the administration, at least, although that's almost the lowest-common denominator litmus test for not starting massive flamewars on the list. a suggestion: get a pseudonym! if you only care about debate, you can debate to your heart's content through it. it's trivial in cyberspace. if, however, you want your posts to accrue to your "true name" because you are uptight about maximizing your "reputation", then this won't work. imho, it does separate the men from the boys in some ways, the way people use and deal with pseudonymity. do they openly advocate it yet fall back on ideas of "true names" randomly relative to it? do they play games like relentlessly try to connect-the-dots of pseudonyms to "true names" via their speculation or whatever? do they feel they have to defend their pseudonym's posts as much as they would those under their so-called "real" name? all signs of cyberspatial immaturity imho. in fact as I understand it, from the fragments of legends tossed around here, this is all what caused Detweiler to self-destruct, when his neurons melted down from contemplating the ramifications of pseudonymity. yet you can see signs of "pseudoparanoia" even among the most "respectable" here. "there is no limit to what a man can accomplish if he doesn't insist on getting credit"...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Tue, 16 Jul 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 96 10:54:28 -0700 From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com> To: David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com, vznuri@netcom.com Subject: Re: Sternlight on C'punks
And another thing. The reason I've not joined this group earlier had nothing to do with "worthy". It was because after discussion a year or so ago, Tim May suggested to me via e-mail that it would just generate a lot of controversy, at a time when people were so polarized that they couldn't hear each other and thus my presence here would serve no useful purpose. I took Tim's advice and stayed out.
frankly I think a mailing list that can't tolerate informed but dissenting views such as your own without self-destructing has an inherent problem that exists independent of your participation. perhaps it is a valuable public service to expose such a flaw. at least, that's the hacker spirit. as for TCM recommending you not join, I'm disappointed to hear anyone so ostensibly and vocally committed to free speech would tell anyone that their presence would be "disruptive" or "controversial" and recommend against it.
I'm enclined to agree with you. It is a bit embarasing for people on one of the newsgroups that encourages free speach like this one does to ask someone, basicly, not to speak because they don't agree with our oppinions. Personally, I'd like to welcome David to the list. I'm sure we need some, well.. out of lack of a better word, opposing, views. So far I've seen more flaimbaiting _AT_ him on this list than _BY_ him.
I thought that by now the more extreme dogmatists among you would have matured, especially given the evidence generated by the real world about how things are and are going if nothing rational and effective is done to stop it. Some of you have met me at Crypto and found I'm not the devil incarnate. Some of you know that we share many (but not all) policy views in common.
well, I find you to have mellowed yourself after a legendary amount of back and forth in cyberspace, although I would still consider some of your own views "dogmatic" as you term it.
The presenting symptom for my joining now was a copy of a post by an MIT professor I respect to this group, which a colleague sent me. Perhaps I was too hasty in my belief that we can begin to hear each other.
I personally find your GAK positions superior to those of the administration, at least, although that's almost the lowest-common denominator litmus test for not starting massive flamewars on the list.
a suggestion: get a pseudonym! if you only care about debate, you
That is a little bit of the "I'm afraid of your oppinion" approach, isn't it? Then his pseudonym would probably just wind up with the same reputation, and people would start comparing him to himself. Thats more likely to make a mess thant to solve anything. He has his views, I have mine, you have yours. Learn to live with it. --Deviant -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMe8cYTAJap8fyDMVAQHvrAf/R/YLvNiISulJ+VnNFxKdusmTnnTHMBG3 V5G4HBAZJ7CamOtfeHPmVZH+QtANZBt8//n4B1eW67sNLhoksQp4GRBUgVotBNsS g3PRNhkG7cIYTN1GOki6hImjvix7NTWG3KpgU1cQXfIDjgFi/9bf/bYGchQLVKpP 4WgjvilI3kWPUcXxhqdponRB9ZBLy7XPTgok/HtENSby2h+oRKL9cUZOjFAuthu2 veYlZ2loju5ovojE0yecYUykCpPiTf6x9AXBBtN4wA2YVMV95s3mzZRbYEeRBkYn WLcOQ1i1Ut0wM5/Bhge0NnjV9wZrykvr21EiGrh/X9wlzp9wrfxoAA== =Ht1c -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
At 4:27 PM -0700 7/15/96, Mark O. Aldrich wrote:
One of the blessings of c'punks was that it was not 'worthy' of the time of several professional flame-baiters who are fairly well-known on the 'Net, in particular, David Sternlight. Now, however, that seems to have changed. If everyone thought things were weird around here with Detweiler, just wait until you see DS's stuff....
<worse stuff omitted> Nothing like a good personal defamation before even reading my posts, eh? As those who have paid attention know, I post my policy views, not flame-bait. The idea that I am deliberately trying to start flame wars is pure paranoia. Of course a good attempt to attack personally is an attempt to avoid the need to try to engage with the substance. It's not only underhanded, but also sheer laziness, typical of small minds which cannot tolerate a difference of view. Your position is as prejudiced as those we sometimes call sexist or racist. Having made my points on this matter, I have no plans to engage in a flame-fest with those who love to provoke one and then blame the victim--to be sure I don't give in to such further provocation from you, welcome to my filter file. David
participants (11)
-
bryce＠digicash.com -
David Sternlight -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Doug Hughes -
ichudov＠algebra.com -
jim bell -
Mark O. Aldrich -
Perry E. Metzger -
Peter D. Junger -
The Deviant -
Vladimir Z. Nuri