Internaut writes:

...

What does concern me is personal privacy. I don't want people tracking my movements or purchasing patterns, so I prefer to use cash or pseudonymous debit cards.

How pseudonymous are debit cards?

In practice, a debit card must be tied to a bank account with a valid SS#. You try something suspicious and the IRS will debit the account $500 and/or freeze it. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Sandy Sandfort wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:

...

In practice, a debit card must be tied to a bank account with a valid SS#. You try something suspicious and the IRS will debit the account $500 and/or freeze it.

Not if it's a foreign bank account.

Sandy, This is not intended as a flame, but I think one of us is crazy here (and I'm getting weekend passes from the 'home', so it can't be me). I am finding it hard to understand how the same people who seemed dedicated to silencing Dr. DV K on this list can then turn around and 'correct' him, or 'add to' his comments, or 'one-up' him in the insult department. It certainly lends fuel to his claim that moderation will be merely a one-way censorship process, as did the plethora of comments (from 'purported' adults), as the espoused date of the beginning of moderation drew near, whereupon various missives were launched by the 'righteous', taking 'parting shots' at those whom they assumed would be relegated to the CypherPunks Flame Camps. I have no quarrel with whatever is done in regard to this list, since it is essentially a private list, but I am rather mystified at the seemingly self-delusional aspects of instituting this nebulous moderation process. Toto

Sandy Sandfort wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Toto wrote:

...

I am finding it hard to understand how the same people who seemed dedicated to silencing Dr. DV K on this list can then turn around and 'correct' him, or 'add to' his comments, or 'one-up' him in the insult department.

Correcting is not an insult. His statement was incorrect or incomplete. I corrected it. His comment was on topic, though in error. My correction was on topic. He was not "silenced" in any way. Toto's proposition, therefore, does not make sense to me. Contrary to several peoples erroneous assumptions, there will be no flaming--of anyone--on the moderated list. When moderation is under weigh, I will do nothing to restrain flaming on the flame and unedited lists. Toto's prejudice (in the literal sense of the word, i.e., "to pre-judge") is showing.

Please don't get the wrong idea, that I'm paranoid or something, but I think I just saw a tiny leak, a miniscule Freudian slip of sorts - Sandy says "I will do nothing to restrain ..... the unedited list...". Do we now have to have occasional assurances that the "unedited" list is not being restrained? I thought that was a given, beyond question of any kind. I thought *all* of the controversy revolved around the edited/censored list (having stole the original list's name), and that everyone understood that the uncensored list was untouchable. But now Sandy is taken to offering reassurances. What's next??

Sandy Sandfort wrote:

Correcting is not an insult.

My post did not say it was, and did not suggest that you insulted Dr. DV K in your post.

He was not "silenced" in any way. Toto's proposition, therefore, does not make sense to me.

If being forcefully unsubscribed 'does not count' as an attempt to silence someone, then I suppose that neither does shipping them to a labor camp in Siberia.

Toto's prejudice (in the literal sense of the word, i.e., "to pre-judge") is showing.

If you are going to define the words you are using, then perhaps you should define them a little more specifically and back them up with specifics, rather than use them as out-of-context, vague declarations. Black's Law Dictionary defines 'prejudice' as: A forejudgment; A leaning towards one side of a cause for some reason other than a conviction of its justice. My post did not make a judgement as to the integrity of your (or anyone's) future moderation of this list, but expressed concern in relation to the attitudes toward moderation, based on the postings that have already taken place on this list. (You're toast, punk. / Your end is drawing near, asshole. etc., etc., etc.) Until I see some indication, other than vague assurances, that there is, in fact, some established rational behind the way the moderation process will be implemented, my concerns will remain. As far as figuring out, to everyone's satisfaction, just what constitues a 'flame', good luck, since everyone seems to have a different definition. Vague, unsubstatiated claims of someone's 'prejudice' might be considered by some to be a flame, or simply regarded as 'misjudgement' by others. Personally, I have no problem with someone telling me "You're full of shit.", rather than, "Sir, I believe you are in error." Others, having played less hockey, might have gentler sensibilities. DataETRetch seemed to feel terribly put-upon and personally attacked by various CypherPunks being so brazenly outspoken as to simply ask for some basis of verification for the outlandish claims they were making for their software. Their representative openly accused the CypherPunks of 'flaming' him for raising valid concerns about the technical nature of their software. There certainly seem to be more than a few people who have faith in your capacity to be a decent moderator, and I see no great reason to disagree with them, but it bothers me that you would take my statement of my concerns, and my reasons behind them, to be a personally biased pre-judgement of your integrity. I find it bothersome that some of the self-proclaimed 'upstanding' members of the CypherPunks list have responded to my attacks on their 'logic' with 'personal' attacks on, and insults toward, myself. At the same time, I would rather hear what they have to say, and be able to make my own personal judgement as to whether the problem is mine, or theirs, than to be 'protected' from them. I hope that your efforts towards decreasing the list's level of blatantly offensive crapola will not lead towards reducing the CypherPunks' tendencies to be outspokenly strong in their convictions. Cryptography is going to be an increasingly important issue in all areas of life in our electronically-global future, and without serious discussion of the issues that go hand-in-hand with its development, then the 'numbers' and the technology behind them have little real meaning. Toto

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Sun, 19 Jan 1997, Toto wrote:

If you are going to define the words you are using, then perhaps you should define them a little more specifically and back them up with specifics, rather than use them as out-of-context, vague declarations. Black's Law Dictionary defines 'prejudice' as: A forejudgment; A leaning towards one side of a cause for some reason other than a conviction of its justice.

First, I did not use it as a legal term of art, so a legal dictionary is not appropriate. Second, I see no sustantive difference between "forejudgment" and my shorthand version (pre-judge). Third, I wrote "literal." Examine the etimology of the word for it's literal meaning. It's pretty obvious AND specific [ME.; OFr, /prejudice/ (Fr. /prejudice/); L praejudicium/, from /prae/, before, and /judicium/, a judgment, from /judex/, /judicgis/, a judge.] In other words, to pre-judge. Get it?

As far as figuring out, to everyone's satisfaction, just what constitues a 'flame', good luck, since everyone seems to have a different definition.

I have no intention nor duty to satisfy everyone. That is not possible. I will use a "reasonable person" test. (I am, by the way, using this in the legal term of art sense.)

Personally, I have no problem with someone telling me "You're full of shit.", rather than, "Sir, I believe you are in error." Others, having played less hockey, might have gentler sensibilities.

Other folks on this list seem to have other opinions. That's why there are horse races. I don't like it, but Toto are free to wallow in it if he chooses.

I hope that your efforts towards decreasing the list's level of blatantly offensive crapola will not lead towards reducing the CypherPunks' tendencies to be outspokenly strong in their convictions.

Somehow, I don't think that will be a problem, as this debate has demonstrated.

Cryptography is going to be an increasingly important issue in all areas of life in our electronically-global future, and without serious discussion of the issues that go hand-in-hand with its development, then the 'numbers' and the technology behind them have little real meaning.

I totally agree with this not-full-of-shit position. Toto and I, unlike some others, seem to agree on the importance of crypto. We only seem to have a problem with how best to discuss the issues. It's a start. S a n d y P.S. I talked to Gilmore about the holdup in getting started. He has been too busy to get the tech side going, but when he does, (a) everyone will be notifed as to the start date, and the test will still run for an entire month. Until then, it is (sadly) business as usual. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Sun, 19 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:

Your/Gilmore's *renaming* of the original list, and co-opting of the *original* name for the edited list is prima facie evidence of bad faith,...

Sophist, paranoid nonsense. This one-month test is of a moderated *Cypherpunks* list. So there was no renaming. The unedited list was a gimme for cry babies such as Dale. When the test is complete, things will go back to the previous status if that's what folks want. If not, Cypherpunks will continue as a moderated list (of some sort, further test may be conducted if list members want).

i.e., a transparent attempt to fool the public...

(a) If it were transparent, it wouldn't fool anyone, now would it? (b) I've stated it all clear enough so that only the most naive persons could infer an attempt to fool anyone. (c) "The public" has nothing to do with it. This is a private list.

I'll make you a deal, even though I hold no *real* cards. Set the original name back to the original, unedited list, and vice-versa, and I'll back off of all these complaints, assuming that you don't try something else that impinges on the integrity of the original list.

Maybe after the test if that's what folks want. In the meantime, hey Dale, knock yourself out. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bill Frantz wrote:

At 12:16 AM -0800 1/19/97, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:

...

If you trust me, or someone else, like Prof. Dave Hayes, here's what we can do: I establish a sendmail alias cypherpunks@algebra.com that expands to, say, your address and also cypherpunks@toad.com.

...

If you indeed notice an impropriety, the digitally signed receipts will be your proof that articles were submitted. As long as the other readers trust me (or Dave Hayes, or whoever volunteers), you will have a strong case even without relying on freudian slips.

I hope if such a system is set up, people who use it will realize that email is not 100% reliable. Just because algebra.com sent mail to toad.com, doesn't mean that toad.com actually received it. A small fraction of a percent of these messages will be lost.

That is correct, although only a very small fraction of mail is lost. If a pattern would appear, however, that would be a strong argument. - Igor.

Bill Frantz writes:

I hope if such a system is set up, people who use it will realize that email is not 100% reliable. Just because algebra.com sent mail to toad.com, doesn't mean that toad.com actually received it. A small fraction of a percent of these messages will be lost.

Failing something catastrophic like a disk failure or a host down for more than a week, this should not be the case. Almost every site running sendmail has the Os ("SuperSafe") option set. That means sendmail will not respond to a "." at the end of a DATA command with SMTP code 250 until it has written the incoming message (and queue info) to disk and called fsync. Thus, you may get 2 copies of a message, but mail messages should not just disappear regularly at all, even if the network goes down or a machine crashes. Non-sendmail MTA's tend to be even more strict about this, not even allowing this behavior to be disabled.

At 9:19 PM -0800 1/19/97, WinSock Remailer wrote:

Bill Frantz writes:

...

I hope if such a system is set up, people who use it will realize that email is not 100% reliable. Just because algebra.com sent mail to toad.com, doesn't mean that toad.com actually received it. A small fraction of a percent of these messages will be lost.

Failing something catastrophic like a disk failure or a host down for more than a week, this should not be the case. Almost every site running sendmail has the Os ("SuperSafe") option set. That means sendmail will not respond to a "." at the end of a DATA command with SMTP code 250 until it has written the incoming message (and queue info) to disk and called fsync. Thus, you may get 2 copies of a message, but mail messages should not just disappear regularly at all, even if the network goes down or a machine crashes.

Non-sendmail MTA's tend to be even more strict about this, not even allowing this behavior to be disabled.

About 9 months ago, I lost somewhere between 50 and 100 email messages because they were written to a disk with a corrupted file system. Now failures of this kind may be in the category of "catastrophic disk failure", but in my unfortunate experience, they are not all that uncommon. Note that since I lost multiple messages due to one failure, tests of the form, "Once is happenstance, twice coincidence, three or more is conspiracy" might say, "conspiracy" even for just one failure. The chances of this test criteria error increase for frequent posters. At 4:02 AM -0800 1/20/97, Toto asked:

Are there any critereon established, yet, as to what type of content will be necessary for a letter to get 'lost'?

See the above discussion of disk failure. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Client in California, POP3 | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | in Pittsburgh, Packets in | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz@netcom.com | Pakistan. - me | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA