Re: layered deception
At 12:04 AM 4/30/2001 -0500, Kevin L Prigge wrote: On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 12:13:01AM -0400, Phillip H. Zakas wrote: i agree...unless you're specifically directed to do so, maintaining log files is completely optional. there are no regs requiring isps or websites or mail providers to do so, other than the standard 'you need to comply with a court order or search warrant, etc.' From recent experience, LE provides us with an order to preserve certain logged information. The order is in advance of obtaining a search warrant, and specifies what information will be requested in the warrant. In an incident earlier this year, we received the order six weeks before the warrant was issued. The existance of the order was sealed. What if the sysadmin is intentionally located in an offshore location so that they cannot be kept from notifying all users of the logging order? steve
Re: layered deception
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 11:24:09PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote: What if the sysadmin is intentionally located in an offshore location so that they cannot be kept from notifying all users of the logging order? Then we pass a cybercrime treaty to require them to follow U.S. laws. Law enforcement has a long time horizon. -Declan
Re: (gray travel)
David Honig wrote: The term 'grey man' is also used by R. Tomlinson in _The Big Breach_ where it means basically the same, an observer/tail/Gargoyle who blends in. Erm, perhaps, but Gargoyle has a completely different meaning than just a guy observing and bleding in. It's from Stephenson's Snow Crash. A Gargoyle is someone who is carrying a ton of recording equipment. They stand out. Tomlinson's grey man is not wearing recording gear making him into a VCR. :) He's just a tail. -- --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ --*--:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net
Re: layered deception
At 10:56 AM 4/30/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 11:24:09PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote: What if the sysadmin is intentionally located in an offshore location so that they cannot be kept from notifying all users of the logging order? Then we pass a cybercrime treaty to require them to follow U.S. laws. Ahhh, but who is the them? My understanding is that under state and Federal law only executives and those with signature authority can be held criminally responsible for their actions. U.S. corporations can be created and administered solely by non-residents (only an in-state legal service point is generally required.). Nevada corporations can be held in bearer form shielding beneficial owners. steve
RE: (gray travel) - back to recording laws of men stuff
Sunder on Honig: David Honig wrote: The term 'grey man' is also used by R. Tomlinson in _The Big Breach_ where it means basically the same, an observer/tail/Gargoyle who blends in. Erm, perhaps, but Gargoyle has a completely different meaning than just a guy observing and bleding in. It's from Stephenson's Snow Crash. A Gargoyle is someone who is carrying a ton of recording equipment. Oregon cop gargoyles...? http://oregonlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?o0079_ BC_OR-XGR--PoliceEavesdrnewsornews ~Aimee
Re: BSE
The level of idealism is amazing. The corrective forces of free markets and anarchy usually discussed here are certainly in operation in varying degrees throughout our economic system. I think the confidence level is naive and the damage that can result from unfettered profit seeking is underestimated. I also doubt that anyone here has the bandwidth to handle the information required to do it all yourself. Hence the evolution of collective systems to perform the tasks with all of the imperfections ( and some new ones to boot ) of the component parts that go into them. LOL, Mike James A. Donald wrote: If people are concerned about scrapie, they will demand meat that has never been fed cannibalistically, just as some people demand pestified free fruit. By and large, most people make better choices for themselves than government officials make for other people. --digsig James A. Donald From Sandy Sandfort First of all, your questions assume a lot of facts not in evidence. Anarchy and regulation are not mutually exclusive, nor are the best interests of the community (whatever that means) and profit. The best way to approach any sort of anarchy question is to assume that you are already in a state of anarchy and then ask the question, what would *I* do to protect myself and others from this health hazard? You should really do the head-work for yourself, but I can throw out a couple of ideas to show how I'd approach the problem. 1) To protect myself, I'd only eat beef that had been certified as okay by someone I trusted. I'd be comfortable if it carried the Kosher mark, the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, Underwriters Laboratories UL logo, Consumers Report rating or maybe even a no-mad-cow assurance from the Beef Council (It's What's for Dinner). All of these are forms of voluntary regulation. 2) To protect everyone else, I might start a business that tested and certified beef. It could either use the Consumer Report business model (consumer directly bears the cost of certification) or the Kosher model (producers bears the cost). Hopefully, I'd do well by doing good. In any case, selling bad products is not consistent with short or long-term profit. Businesses don't submit to voluntary rating/certification because they are nice guys, but because it enhances their ultimate profit by quelling consumer fears. And if you don't believe this simple truth, just try to buy a can of Bon Vivant vichyssoise soup. S a n d y
Re: [Fwd: YOU ARE INVITED: Will Encryption Protect Privacy and Make Government Obsolete? -- Next Independent Policy Forum (4/24/01)]
Quoting William Vogt [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Faustine replies: Quoting William Vogt [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [David Friedman has published in ...] Journal of Law and Economics (more than once) Journal of Political Economy (more than once) American Economic Review AER is usually considered the top economics journal. JPE is in everyone's top 5 and it would be reasonable to rank it second behind AER. I'm sure you know that writing a tiny response or comment in reply to someone else's article isn't the same as having your own research published there. [...] Seems a little like disingenuous padding to me. Well, I found 4 articles of his in JSTOR (an economics archive) in JPE. None were comments; although, at least two were rather short. I found 1 non-comment article and 2 comments (one not labeled as such in its title) in AER. It seems to me that what I said above is right. At any rate, I hope you'll be kind enough to imply that I am stupid next time you don't agree with my presentation of data. The implication that I am dishonest is both obnoxious and unfounded. That *is* what disingenuous means, no? Oh no! I wasn't referring to you at all: I was talking about the CV. You are by no means stupid OR dishonest! My apologies for the confusion. (And my utter lack of clarity.) Do you really mean to say you think Friedman is up to NBER standards? Maybe I just haven't read the right thing yet; let me know what you think his best stuff is and I'll give it a shot. I don't know what it means to be up to NBER standards. NBER is not a standard-setting organization. It is more like a club. Clubs have standards: from what I've seen, I have every reason to assume theirs are very high. How about I point you to a piece of his stuff which signals strongly that he is a good economist? See Friedman, D (1987) Cold houses in warm climates ... JPE 95(5): 1089-97. Thanks, I'll read it! That piece can have little political or policy motivation. It's interesting and insightful. It applies economic reasoning in an unusual context: an unimportant context, even. Why would someone write and publish such a thing? The most plausible explanation is that he 1) cares a lot about moving phenomena from the category stuff I don't understand to the category stuff I understand in terms of economic incentives. and 2) is reasonably good at doing what he cares about. A fair definition of a good economist. His piece in JPE 107(6):S259-69 is also nice. Assuming that this is one of the essays you think is slack, would it have made you happier if it had a formal model? I'm not sure about this cite, better look it up and read it before I put my foot in it again... :) Finally, Machinery of Freedom is quite a nice bit of advocacy-scholarship. Given the subject matter and the vintage of the book, it seems very good to me. For what it's worth, I liked your work MUCH better. Well, that's very kind. I don't agree with you, however. Given that I respect your ability to judge these things, there's nothing left to conclude but that I'm in need of reading a little more Friedman! Thanks for the references. By the way, you say in another article: Vogt [believes] that [Faustine] didn't know about economics journals This is not true, and nothing I said even remotely trenched on implying this. It's what the other author said you implied. Are there other people reading this mailing list? Are they all economists? Finally, I'm curious about another comment you made elsewhere. What large impact do you think Hayek has had on economics? He had an enormous impact on economic policy that actually was implemented, from Thatcher on down. When Economist Magazine calls the 20th c. The Hayek Century, I'm assuming this is the angle they had in mind. Off to the library, :) ~Faustine. 'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
Re: [Fwd: YOU ARE INVITED: Will Encryption Protect Privacy and Make Government Obsolete? -- Next Independent Policy Forum (4/24/01)]
Quoting James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED]: At 03:37 PM 4/27/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote: We should hold ourselves and our friends to HIGHER standards if we want to get somewhere in the long run. You could start by holding yourself to the standard of actually having some faint glimmering of knowledge about the research areas of those you confidently proclaim are of insufficiently high standard. I do. Which is why, when William Vogt was kind enough to actually point me to some Friedman articles he finds valuable, I'm going to read them and try to learn something from them. I respect Vogt's work and therefore value his opinion: so if he says there's something to Friedman I know I probably ought to start thinking about whether or not I need to reconsider. Far too many people take the view that people I agree with = good; people I disagree with = bad. What really matters is whether or not I can respect how you got there. And that has to do with bias: if someone points out my factual or logical errors, or relevant information I've missed, I sure want to know about it. I respect that as a vital part of the process. And it sure beats relying on ad-hominem attacks to get your point across anyday. Someone once said policy analysts are like surgeons: they don't last long if they ignore what they see when they cut an issue open. So that's basically where I'm coming from. ~Faustine. 'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
RE: BSE
Mike wrote: The level of idealism is amazing. Do you mean in those who continue to believe in coercive solutions (i.e., government)? Especially in the face of the fact that government has been responsible for 120+ million deaths in the 20th century alone? :-D The corrective forces of free markets and anarchy usually discussed here are certainly in operation in varying degrees throughout our economic system. Yes, we live in a mixed economy. The countries with the most government, though have the least responsive economies and vice versa. I think the confidence level is naive and the damage that can result from unfettered profit seeking is underestimated. You have fallen for the Inchoate fallacy. Profit seeking is not the sine qua non of literal anarchistic systems--non-coercion is. I also doubt that anyone here has the bandwidth to handle the information required to do it all yourself. Hence the evolution of collective systems to perform the tasks... You're generalization is correct, but your underlying assumption is flawed. Yes, groups of people collectively address problems that they cannot solve on their own. However, this does NOT imply or require coercive collective solutions. Voluntary cooperation is totally consistent with literal anarchic systems. S a n d y
Re: Technological Solution
Quoting Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED]: At 6:32 PM -0700 4/28/01, Tim May wrote: (You see, the quick review process is much better than the method you suggested re: economics, that people read the main textbooks. People don't need to spend several months wading through cryptography textbooks to come up to a level that is sufficient to understand the real issues.) I erred. I got Aimee mixed-up with Faustine. It is Faustine who argues for reading Samuelson instead of the books we normally recommend. For the record, I also said that any econ 101 textbook would do just as well: the only reason his name was mentioned at all was that he wrote the first intro textbook that came to mind. And I never said not to read the books on your list, never offered an alternate list, etc. If you'd like to point me to the ambiguous part of my saying it's a great list please do...otherwise, no need to misrepresent me. Quick review is great in that you can absorb a lot of relevant information that way--but you inevitably end up missing a lot too. Personally, I'm glad I spent about a week intensely digesting the Schneier. You only have to read an intro once, and I think it really helped me be able to put things in a broader perspective, faster. There's a whole continuum between sufficient to understand the issues and mastery of the subject(s) comprising the issues. You might say that feeling completely at home with the issues is something inbetween to shoot for. And how much you demand of yourself before you feel like you got there is entirely up to you. ~Faustine. 'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
RE: BSE
Mike wrote: The level of idealism is amazing. Do you mean in those who continue to believe in coercive solutions (i.e., government)? Especially in the face of the fact that government has been responsible for 120+ million deaths in the 20th century alone? :-D The idealism that I refer to is the concept that human beings can create something substantially better than what exists. We should all have a touch of this idealism but reality doesn't fit the model so well. The corrective forces of free markets and anarchy usually discussed here are certainly in operation in varying degrees throughout our economic system. Yes, we live in a mixed economy. The countries with the most government, though have the least responsive economies and vice versa. A bit overbroad. I think the confidence level is naive and the damage that can result from unfettered profit seeking is underestimated. You have fallen for the Inchoate fallacy. Profit seeking is not the sine qua non of literal anarchistic systems--non-coercion is. Now that's idealism - a human-powered machine that doesn't work by coercion. Yep, that's where I'd place my bet. I also doubt that anyone here has the bandwidth to handle the information required to do it all yourself. Hence the evolution of collective systems to perform the tasks... You're generalization is correct, but your underlying assumption is flawed. Yes, groups of people collectively address problems that they cannot solve on their own. However, this does NOT imply or require coercive collective solutions. Voluntary cooperation is totally consistent with literal anarchic systems. S a n d y And to bring the topic full-circle - both behaviors exists in parallel now, today. Let the best one win. That would seem to fit the underlying Darwinian bent to the anarchistic whoozywhatzits. Mike
Re: layered deception
Steve, Even assuming that what you say is true, and I suspect it is, you'd be relying on protections enshrined in the law. The purpose of this treaty, of course, is to change the law. :) -Declan On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 10:07:33AM -0700, Steve Schear wrote: At 10:56 AM 4/30/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 11:24:09PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote: What if the sysadmin is intentionally located in an offshore location so that they cannot be kept from notifying all users of the logging order? Then we pass a cybercrime treaty to require them to follow U.S. laws. Ahhh, but who is the them? My understanding is that under state and Federal law only executives and those with signature authority can be held criminally responsible for their actions. U.S. corporations can be created and administered solely by non-residents (only an in-state legal service point is generally required.). Nevada corporations can be held in bearer form shielding beneficial owners. steve
RE: BSE
I wrote: Do you mean in those who continue to believe in coercive solutions (i.e., government)? Especially in the face of the fact that government has been responsible for 120+ million deaths in the 20th century alone? :-D The idealism that I refer to is the concept that human beings can create something substantially better than what exists. You mean like human beings have been doing for 10,000 years? Even in my mere 54 years I have seen amazing advances. I expect to see many many more before I'm through. We should all have a touch of this idealism but reality doesn't fit the model so well. Belief in progress has been the hallmark of human endeavor ever since at least the Industrial Revolution. Where's your historical perspective. My guess is that you are not very old, is that correct? The countries with the most government, though have the least responsive economies and vice versa. A bit overbroad. Perhaps, but true nonetheless. Profit seeking is not the sine qua non of literal anarchistic systems--non-coercion is. Now that's idealism - a human-powered machine that doesn't work by coercion. Yep, that's where I'd place my bet. You already do. 98% of what you do every day is based on non-coercive, voluntary interactions. Excluding natural disasters (floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.), the remaining 2% (i.e., government/coercion) is responsible for essentially all of the rest of humankind's miseries. Over 120,000,000 deaths in the 20th century alone... And to bring the topic full-circle - both behaviors exists in parallel now, today. Let the best one win. That would seem to fit the underlying Darwinian bent to the anarchistic whoozywhatzits. Yes and no. By it's nature coercion fights against freedom (e.g., when the subsidized post office was still unable to compete against Lysander Spooner, it didn't improve its efficiency, it just got the government to make it a coercive monopoly). We'll win in the long run, but it's not a fair fight. S a n d y
Idealism, non-coercion, and anarchies
At 1:35 PM -0700 4/30/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The idealism that I refer to is the concept that human beings can create something substantially better than what exists. We should all have a touch of this idealism but reality doesn't fit the model so well. Many of us certainly believe that human beings can create something substantially better than what exists. Examples abound, so I don't have to start making a laundry list. However, what many of us also believe is that top-down or central planning or scientific economic planning rarely works, and the few times it works are swamped by the problems it creates (ethical problems, efficiency problems, and misallocation of resources problems). I'd say most of us on this list _are_ in fact idealists in the normal sense of the word: we hope to see changes made to society. If we were not idealists, we'd probably be Democrat Party activists and hacks, perhaps working on ways to redistribute income to our voting base. Or Republican Party organizers, arranging fund-raisers for our candidates and finding ways to have Seawolf submarine factories built in our local political districts. You have fallen for the Inchoate fallacy. Profit seeking is not the sine qua non of literal anarchistic systems--non-coercion is. Now that's idealism - a human-powered machine that doesn't work by coercion. Yep, that's where I'd place my bet. Assuming you are being facetious, you are missing the anarchies that are all around us. Bookstores, restaurants, and a hundred other similar examples operate with essentially no coercion over customers, no coercion over who enters their stores or restaurants, and with very little regulation by men with guns. Noncoercion _is_ the sine qua non in that when agents are not coerced, their natural profit-making motivations can then operate. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May [EMAIL PROTECTED]Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
Re: BSE
At 6:09 PM -0700 4/30/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think where we differ is that I'm extremely pessimististic about human nature. It's not that I don't like the idealistic picture, I just don't see that it can work out that way. First, being extremely pessimistic about human nature is _precisely_ why you don't want Throgg the Strongman or Mao the Savior or Hillary the Know it All in charge. Top-down rule by strongmen _magnifies_ the negative aspects of human nature. Second, no one is claiming to know how things will work out. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May [EMAIL PROTECTED]Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
Re: BSE
I think where we differ is that I'm extremely pessimististic about human nature. It's not that I don't like the idealistic picture, I just don't see that it can work out that way. Sandy Sandfort wrote: The idealism that I refer to is the concept that human beings can create something substantially better than what exists. You mean like human beings have been doing for 10,000 years? Even in my mere 54 years I have seen amazing advances. I expect to see many many more before I'm through. Advances of what sort? In the way we treat each other? In that part of human nature that seeks dominance over others? In that part of human nature that resorts to violence when negotiation fails to satisfy? I think there are some fundamental behaviors that have not changed and will not change. Entertaining as it is, beneficial as it can be, Technology != advance, Technology == change. Belief in progress has been the hallmark of human endeavor ever since at least the Industrial Revolution. Where's your historical perspective. My guess is that you are not very old, is that correct? I suppose that's part of a belief system that helps keep things going. The big picture doesn't seem to change a whole lot. Profit seeking is not the sine qua non of literal anarchistic systems--non-coercion is. Now that's idealism - a human-powered machine that doesn't work by coercion. Yep, that's where I'd place my bet. You already do. 98% of what you do every day is based on non-coercive, voluntary interactions. Excluding natural disasters (floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.), the remaining 2% (i.e., government/coercion) is responsible for essentially all of the rest of humankind's miseries. Over 120,000,000 deaths in the 20th century alone... Coercive and non-coercive interactions have always been coexistent. I suspect you're missing some underlying conservation principles and incorrectly interpreting the existing situation at face value. By it's nature coercion fights against freedom (e.g., when the subsidized post office was still unable to compete against Lysander Spooner, it didn't improve its efficiency, it just got the government to make it a coercive monopoly). How do you distinguish the two states ( coercive, free ) unless they are both in evidence? I doubt they can even exist separately. We'll win in the long run, but it's not a fair fight. S a n d y Win what? You patch the floodwalls in Iowa and Missouri and the flood will be worse in Louisiana. That does not mean that you shouldn't try but the prognosis is not for anything but localized victories.
