Re: Comped scribblers the bane of conferences
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: (What might? Putting several of the main architects of competing systems like Freedom, Mojo, Morpheus, Mixmaster, etc. together in a room with plenty of blackboards, a lot of beer, and some folks like Lucky, Wei Dai, Hal Finney, and others to hash out some of the tough issues and maybe catalyze some breakthroughs. Looking at the topics, I see the likely paper contributors will be academics and corporate ladder-climbers.) That's what targeted publicity is for -- making sure the right people see the message and show up (and maybe publish something). While I didn't make it to the 2001 Berkeley workshop, I know that some of the Freenet developers were there. ZKS was well-represented. I think the Mojo people were there, though I could be wrong. That's a start. Then once everyone's there, the rest is a matter of (non)scheduling and beer ordering. (well, and Kahlua maybe). So what I should do now, I guess, is contact the Morpheus team and convince them to come. maybe submit something if they feel like it. -David
Re: Anonymous Posting
On Sunday, August 26, 2001, at 12:11 AM, Reese wrote: It's easy to stay on topic, or on a topic, it's another thing to be appropriate. Tim is good, but easy improvement is within reach, as you sort of noted. Fuck off. I'll take constructive criticism from people who are better writers than I, or at least in the same ballpark. But not from those who have left no lasting impression. --Tim May
Re: Comped scribblers the bane of conferences
On Saturday, August 25, 2001, at 11:51 PM, dmolnar wrote: So what I should do now, I guess, is contact the Morpheus team and convince them to come. maybe submit something if they feel like it. I need to add another comment. I don't know if you speak for the P.E.T. Workshop or not, Dave, but the mistake with this and similar recent conferences is to think that you can just issue a cattle call for papers and have interesting papers come in. The challenge when launching a new conference, as in Information Hiding, Financial Cryptography, this one, is to do more than just issue cattle calls. Sadly, too many of these b.s. conferences take the easy way out and just do the cattle call, hoping that some droids at Philips or Siemens or Intel will write up something vaguely related to the ostensible theme of the conference. The frosting on the cake will be when Esther Dyson is invited to give the keynote speech. --Tim May
Re: Comped scribblers the bane of conferences
On Saturday, August 25, 2001, at 11:51 PM, dmolnar wrote: On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: (What might? Putting several of the main architects of competing systems like Freedom, Mojo, Morpheus, Mixmaster, etc. together in a room with plenty of blackboards, a lot of beer, and some folks like Lucky, Wei Dai, Hal Finney, and others to hash out some of the tough issues and maybe catalyze some breakthroughs. Looking at the topics, I see the likely paper contributors will be academics and corporate ladder-climbers.) That's what targeted publicity is for -- making sure the right people see the message and show up (and maybe publish something). While I didn't make it to the 2001 Berkeley workshop, I know that some of the Freenet developers were there. ZKS was well-represented. I think the Mojo people were there, though I could be wrong. That's a start. No, you're missing the point. The idea is not to just get _bodies_ paying their $600 or $1000 or whatever. That's just business as usual, with suits with Powerpoint on their laptops displaying pretty charts. When I said get the main architects together in a room, with lots of beer, I meant that literally. I didn't mean a presentation at the Airport Hilton or wherever. I meant an intense brain-storming session. The beer to lubricate the bullshits! and here's a better ways. Instead, you're just describing a that's a start scenario which is actually just a snooze-a-thon. Then once everyone's there, the rest is a matter of (non)scheduling and beer ordering. (well, and Kahlua maybe). So what I should do now, I guess, is contact the Morpheus team and convince them to come. maybe submit something if they feel like it. Little point in them just presenting a set of dry slides on what Morpheus is intended to do, blah blah blah. This is what is missing from so many conferences: pizazz! Controversy, yelling, bullshit claims being denounced. (I'm not saying the Morpheus or Freenet or Mojo people are making bullshit claims, but it's clear that _some_ of the P2P/crypto players JUST DON'T GET IT.) Rooms filled with comped (and bored) journalists, suits giving summaries of product plans, spooks from Washington outlining policy initiatives. Fuck that noise. --Tim May
RE: Revolutionary Casino Software
OWN YOUR VERY OWN CASINO AND SPORTSBOOK! - NO PROGRAMMING skills necessary! - OPEN for business 24 hours per day - NO INVESTMENT required! - CUSTOM BRANDED website design! - Offer over 20 extremely popular and exciting games including: Blackjack Bacarrat Craps Roulette Pai Gow Slots ...and much more ...Internet Gambling is by far the fastest growing and most profitable business on the Internet today! according to Steve Wynn, CEO of Mirage Resorts. With our state-of-the-art, easy to use software, you can now build your own Internet gambling website instantly and start capitalizing on a multi-bullion dollar industry which is still in its relative infancy. Unlike conventional dot com businesses, online gambling is a fast-growing, cash-rich business. Just imagine if you captured a fraction of 1% of the bets placed online. As the number of internet users increases exponentially, so will the amounts wagered online. The time to establish an online presence is now, before the next big surge in internet growth. You will receive 50% of all net winnings - the highest commission payout in the online gambling industry! You can expect to earn $3,000 - 5,000 plus a week! Best of all, this is 100% LEGAL. Don't believe it? Check out the web site http://www.MyCasinoBuilder.com for more details. ### We strongly oppose the use of SPAM email and do not want anyone who does not wish to receive our mailings to receive them. As a result, we have retained the services of an independent 3rd party to administer our list management and remove list (www.removeyou.com). This is not SPAM. If you do not wish to receive further mailings, please click below and enter your email at the bottom of the page. You may then rest-assured that you will never receive another email from us again. http//www.removeyou.com The 21st Century Solution. I.D. # 032950 ###
PLEASE TELL ME MORE!
Urgent Messate for daisy1221, STOP! URGENT MESSAGE! PLEASE READ COMPLETELY! It is important that you read this message as soon as possible. Again I urge you to read this message to its fullest! Last year 72% of bankruptcies could have been saved by an extra $200 a month. We are an International E-Commerce Mail Order Company looking for people with a Good Work Ethic and the Desire to Earn $500 - $1,500 per Month Part Time or $2,000 - $7,500+ per Month Full Time Working From Home or Office! The demand for our product line (over 150 different products) is so great we need to train more people to process the orders and service the growing customer base. To better assist you in the understanding E-Commerce and what the world is raving about with E-Commerce and the Internet, I URGE you to read this message for your own training and understanding on what it can do for you. Everyone is excited about E-Commerce. We recently opened our business in India and with that we are trying to help as many people start and generate foreign and local business in India as fast as possible. As the Economy in India is tested, this opportunity right now is the fastest growing industry in India, Panama, Cyprus, Korea, China and Japan. This is a U.S. Based Company so it is very exciting to be growing by doubling and tripling in over 50 Countries right now. Expected growth in the next three years is 80 % in each country with new countries opening every day. We are expected to reach the world in the next 4 years and with that you can imagine the internet and E-Commerce is currently growing by 200 % each Quarter. There will be a 2000 % increase in E-Commerce Business and revenues on the Internet in the next 18 Months. No special skills or experience is required. We will give you all the training and personal support you will need to ensure your success. You will be trained via Internet in the comfort of your own home and you will determine your work hours. A minimum commitment of 7-10 hours a week is required. The income you generate from your efforts can put you back in Control of your Time, Your Finances and Your Life! If you've tried other opportunities in the past that have failed to live up to their promises, this is different than anything else you are aware of! This is not a get rich scheme. You must work to earn income! Your financial past does not have to be your financial future. There is no security on this earth. There is only opportunity. -Douglas Macarthur Do you feel like you are too busy earning a living to make any real money? Are you tired of living paycheck to paycheck like I was? Do you dream of a better lifestyle for yourself and your family? If so, then I urge you to take read on to better understand why I sent you this message. We provide the system, experience and hands on training. The only thing that we can not give you, but is required is that you, number one have the desire and number two, is that you are teachable. We know that you have some level of desire because you are reading this letter. Ask yourself if you are teachable. Everyone evolved in our business had three things in common when they got started: They saw an opportunity, they were teachable, and they applied what they learned. It's THAT simple. And it's THAT powerful. * Now imagine just for a moment that you had a home-based business that provided Spending more time with your family, Unlimited income based on YOUR efforts, Freedom from commuting, Not having your kids in day care, Affordable health care for your family, Significantly helping others with their lives, Loving what you do and doing what you love, Having your own business/being your own boss Sounds too good to be true? That's what we thought, but today our dreams are coming true and now we're here to help you, like others have helped us! ** We like to get right to the point...so here is what we have to offer you: A well established, financially stable company, 2 Billion dollar + sales / publicly traded, Patented, exclusive, high demand consumable products, Comprehensive, high-tech in home training, Phenomenal support system, Worldwide income opportunities (especially through E-Commerce), Exotic paid vacations and Minimal start up investment. ARE YOU GETTING A BIT CURIOUS? GREAT! That's fine... as long as you're serious! Because our business is bursting at the seams, we ONLY have time to work with serious, motivated people who are ready to make changes in their life NOW! And because of the time we spend with each of you as we help you get your business off the ground, we have limited number of openings available. Here is what you need to do... This business fell into my lap in September of 1997. I got started as a customer and woke up when my wife made an extra $500 in the first week. At the time I was an Active Duty Marine living paycheck to paycheck making
Save 50% on Premium Cigarettes! 10624
Buy premium cigarettes for up to 50% off. Carton Niagra $10.50 Carton Marboro Duty Free $22.00 Click Here to See the Savings! Did you know that buying cigarettes on line from America's Discount Cigarettes you can save you up to 50%. We ship from the Seneca Indian Reservation which saves you having to pay most of those high State and Federal taxes on each pack. Here's an example of the saving you can expect... Marboro Box Duty Free $22.00 a carton ..that's only $2.20 per pack! Salem's $23.00 per carton ..that's only $2.30 per pack. Stop throwing money away. Visit our site today and start saving today! This email was sent to you because your email is part of a targeted opt-in list. If you do not wish to receive further mailings, please click below and enter your email at the bottom of the page. You may then rest-assured that you will never receive another email from us again.UNSUBSCRIBE ME PLEASE
cpunx fork of Mojo
I've started running MojoNation today http://www.mojonation.net/devel/source.shtml which I like so far, it's smooth already, despite late beta. According to past discussions with Mojo developers it should be very possible to make a cypherpunk-relevant fork of it. The cypherpunk-relevant changes would be sacrificing performance by only having a low node connectivity, only allow links into different legal compartments (one needs to draw an informal persecutability matrix of domains) and onion routing. The changes might be small enough so that the system would still be able to be part of the Mojo network. -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204/;leitl/a __ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3
Subject: Get Viagra, Celebrex, Xenical and more Online Now!!
AT LAST - THESE 'MIRACLE' PHARMECEUTICAL WONDER DRUGS ARE AVAILABLE TO YOU NOW ONLINE - ORDER DIRECT FROM YOUR COMPUTER ... NO INCONVENIENCE OR EMBARRASSMENT TO YOU. No hassles, no waiting rooms, - everything is done online. ONLINE ASSESSMENT BY USA PHYSICIANS IMMEDIATE PRESCRIPTION DISPENSING. All the information that you require is at our Web Site and orders may be placed directly there also. _ V I A G R A® ... manufactured by Pfizer. The miracle drug for male impotence sexual disfunction. VIAGRA® ... $5.97 per dose* discreetly online here. *based on the cost of 100mg tablet split in half and taken as 2 x 50mg doses. http://www.othoserver.net/onlinemeds/974/viagra.htm _ - THE MIRACLE DRUG FOR PAIN RELIEF ... CELEBREX® The new wonder drug C E L E B R E X® gives incredible relief from the debilitating pain of ARTHRITIS and many other painful ailments. CELEBREX® available only by prescription, is an effective medical PAIN RELIEF DRUG, without the side effects of other less successful pain killers. http://www.othoserver.net/onlinemeds/974/celebrex.htm _ AT LAST - THE MIRACLE DRUG FOR MALE HAIR LOSS AND BALDNESS ... P R O P E C I A® PROPECIA® (finasteride), available only by prescription, is an exciting weapon in the battle against male pattern hair loss. PROPECIA® blocks the formation of DHT and in this way appears to interupt a key factor in the development of inherited pattern hair loss in men. http://www.othoserver.net/onlinemeds/974/propecia.htm _ AT LAST - THE MIRACLE DRUG FOR PROVEN WEIGHT LOSS . X E N I C A L® The new wonder slimming drug XENICAL® is approved by the FDA for use in the USA. XENICAL® available only by prescription is an effective medical treatment for weight loss .. .. NOT SOME FAD ! .. http://www.othoserver.net/onlinemeds/974/xenical.htm _ C L A R I T I N® ( loratadine ) . for powerful relief of seasonal allergy symtoms of sneezing, itchy watery eyes, and a runny nose by blocking the action of histamine. http://www.othoserver.net/onlinemeds/974/claritin.htm _ WARNING !! SMOKING KILLS BIGTIME !! ARE YOU READY TO STOP SMOKING NOW.. . FOREVER ?? Z Y B A N® WILL ASSIST YOU KICK IT. ZYBAN ® is the newest option to assist in smoking cessation. It is an anti-smoking pill that seems to reduce nicotine withdrawal symptoms and the urge to smoke. ZYBAN ® ( bupropion hydrochloride) approved by FDA in May 1997 has ONE MAJOR ADVANTAGE over any other anti-smoking fix .IT CONTAINS NO NICOTINE ... http://www.othoserver.net/onlinemeds/974/zyban.htm _ R E N O V A® ... .. is the first PRESCRIPTION cream to help to reduce fine facial wrinkles and lines, fade brown spots and smooth surface roughness when used as part of a total skin care and sun protection program. RENOVA® increases collagen levels in the areas where applied. RENOVA® works by stimulating the generation of new skin cells. http://www.othoserver.net/onlinemeds/974/renova.htm _ Patients are assessed online for their suitability to take ANY of these breakthrough pharmeceutical drugs and if approved their prescription is dispensed immediately with further ADDITIONAL refills. ORDERS ARE SHIPPED WORLDWIDE, [ to Countries where Customs permits delivery ], and delivered discreetly to your door. http://www.othoserver.net/onlinemeds/974 _ To optout from future mailings please visit http://www.othoserver.net/onlinemeds/remove.html
lists of EMAIL addresses
Do you have a product or service that you want to sell? Have you tried many advertising methods with little or no results? Now you can reach millions of potential customers quickly and easily with just a click of a button. We offer you BIG lists of email addresses. Order them, download them and start advertising TODAY! Go and get them at: http://www.sendfast.net
Bell Sues
Here's the 14-page court docket for Jim Bell's case through August 25, 2001: http://cryptome.org/jdb082501.htm This lists several of Jim's appeals, the last on August 14. For a flavor of what's been going on to deny Jim his rights here's a footnote to a Sentencing Memorandum of August 9 by Robert Leen, Jim's attorney (docket No. 184): Within the past week undersigned counsel obtained a copy of the class action lawsuit the defendant has filed in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Among the accusations in the Complaint is a litany of alleged ethical violations, criminal acts and misdeeds that undersigned counsel purportedly committed in conjunction with the Court and other court officers. In response to complaints the defendant has made to this court, the WSBA and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, undersigned counsel has repeatedly moved to withdraw or, in the alternative, permit the defendant to represent himself. These requests have been denied. Inasmuch as the defendant has objected to undersigned counsel taking any action on his behalf undersigned counsel asks that the Court not rely upon any argument made in this sentencing memorandum unless expressly adopted by the defendant. - No private mail on this topic, responses only to cpunks without cc to me, thanks.
The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: At the June meeting I drew a graph which makes the point clearly. A pity I can't draw it here. (Yeah, there are ways. My new Web page should have some drawings soon. But this list is about ASCII.) Plot Value of Being Untraceable in a Transaction on the X-axis. This is the perceived _value_ of being untraceable or private. Start with little or nothing, proceed to about a dollar then to hundreds of dollars then to thousands then to tens of thousands and more. (The value of being untraceable is also the cost of getting caught: getting caught plotting the overthrow of the Crown Prince of Abu Fukyou, being outed by a corporation in a lawsuit, being audited by the IRS and them finding evaded taxes, having the cops find a cache of snuff films on your hard disk, and so on.) Unfortunately the situation is more multi-variant than a simple two-axis graph... There needs to be at least a time axis added as well as splitting out the 'cost of transaction' from the 'cost of anonmymity'. By combining the two a whole zoo of behaviours are ignored. Your graph, and any point from it, isn't worth looking at in anything less thana 5-axis phase space. -- natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: RATIONAL ACTORS The obvious point is that rational actors never pay more for untraceability than they get back in perceived benefits. Someone will not pay $1000 for privacy/untraceability technology or tools that only nets them $500 in perceived benefits. They won't spend $1.00 in tools to net them 10 cents in perceived benefits. If it's restricted to a single opportunity, yes. If one adds the boundary condition of repeatability your thesis comes apart. Consider the cost of using an anonymizing layer which is for almost all players equal. The point to be gained here is there are different anonymizing layers. Each with their own specific characteristics. A mouse doesn't look like an elephant for a reason. Now if the anonymizing layer is digital, for example, the cost is about the same across the board, irrespective of other source/sink magnitudes. In those cases for example, assuming a higher resourced player was involved would mean the cost of enforcement would go up. They would have resources to spend on additional, and distinct, anonymizing layers that lower layered players wouldn't have available. Most rational actors, instead of measuring 'perceived benefits', will only pay a certain percentage of their gains to reap those gains. One can then break the various layers (eg 10%, 20%, 30%, ...) into characteristic behaviours. It's also worth noting that a specific relation between the selection of that percentage and how much the player already has is present. A Markov Chain of behaviours would be a more apt model. Not everyone faced with the same numbers will make the same choice. There is a limit to 'rationality'. -- natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Bell Case Files
We've put up some 80 court filings in the Bell case, hyperlinked to the August 25 docket cited here yesterday: http://cryptome.org/jdb082501.htm Recall that Judge Tanner sealed all the public files that were available when he learned one of the filings provided names of the jury pool and names of jurors selected for the trial. The court's online files were removed. He subsequently unsealed most of the files (except 7 which remain sealed) but the pre-trial filings have not been restored to the court's web site. Now only post-trial filings are available there. Our offering is for the whole kaboodle that appeared on the court's site from day 1, starting with the complaint from November 2000 through the sentencing order of August 24, 2001. The files are in the multi-image TIFF format used by the WWA court (and a number of other courts). The files can be viewed by a multi-image viewer such as Kodak's Imaging for Windows (included with W98 et seq), Quick Time, Graph Works (a shareware), and others.
Re: Bell Case Files
Out of curiousity, does anybody mirror cryptome et al. on Freenet and MojoNation? I would do it, but it's easier if you have access to the raw filesystem. On Sun, 26 Aug 2001, John Young wrote: We've put up some 80 court filings in the Bell case, hyperlinked to the August 25 docket cited here yesterday: http://cryptome.org/jdb082501.htm -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204/;leitl/a __ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3
Re: Reporter's shield laws
At 06:12 PM 8/25/01 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: I agree that John Young should be considered a reporter. And also a ... Still, I think it's possible to differentiate between people involved or suspected of being involved in a criminal act (Clinton, Tripp, Condit, perhaps Vinnie, in your example) and neutral observers and commentators. Ho-ho, but JY is a known subscriber/contributor to the same Conspiracy List as JB, CJ, etc. (As are you..) Ergo, a sufficiently rabid [per|pro]secutor could strip you of your 'neutrality'. (What's to stop Vinnie from starting a website covering the Mob to gain journalists' protections?) What's to stop a prosecutor for arguing that a journalist who publishes mostly in, e.g., lefty mags is not part of the Conspiracy du jour? What you and Tim ought to consider IMHO is that the 5th amendment's protection against self-incrimination protects everyone, and journalists don't need 'special' status under such a reading. All you need to do is realize how easily you can be painted into a conspiracy, or charged with an offense under some 'good-samaritan' (compulsory intervention) law. That is sufficient linkage between possible-testimony and self-incrimination. (Except when a grand jury abuses its ability to grant immunity...another thread.) That certainly would have excused JY from answering *anything*, regardless of his status as a Protected Species or not. In the case of that author who is writing her first book about some murder she's researched, she is probably 'guilty' of not reporting what she's learned, under some screwed law somewhere.
Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
At 09:56 PM 8/25/2001 -0700, Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: some really great stuff deleted CONCLUSION: To really do something about untraceability you need to be untraceable. Draw this graph I outlined. Think about where the markets are for tools for privacy and untraceability. Realize that many of the far out' sweet spot applications are not necessarily immoral: think of freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes, think of distribution of birth control information in Islamic countries, think of Jews hiding their assets in Swiss bank accounts, think of revolutionaries overthrowing bad governments, think of people avoiding unfair or confiscatory taxes, think of people selling their expertise when some guild says they are forbidden to. Most of all, think about why so many efforts to sort of deploy digital cash or untraceability tools have essentially failed due to a failure of nerve, a failure to go for the brass ring. Right on target. There is one aspect to this loss of nerve not mentioned: the correlation between those with the means and interest to pursue these avenues and those with merely the interest. One of this list's members shopped here and elsewhere a few years back for participation in building a DBC-based payment and value system. He had assembled a team with the banking experience, needing the technology implementors. None were willing to put their talents to the test. They all nodded regarding the need for such a facility but none would expend any efforts. They were all being courted by the failed dot.bombs which waved generous salary and stock offers. Now that the tulip market has evaporated along with the dreams of quick riches I wonder if any these pseudo-zealots were ever really interested or was it a merely a childish fancy from the start? As Tim demonstrates the opportunity is still there it waits only for those with the right stuff to grab for the ring. Free, secure Web-based email, now OpenPGP compliant - www.hushmail.com
Re: Gnutella scanning instead of service providers.
On 25 Aug 2001, at 16:06, Gary Jeffers wrote: > My fellow Cypherpunks, > >Ray Dillinger believes that scanning would assist oppressors as > much as regular users. Joseph Ashwood agrees with this and further > thinks that the Internet overhead of a scanner would be a serious > problem. > The problem is this: there's no way that you can set this up so that random users can find gnutella servers and LEOs can't. No way, impossible, give up. >I still think that scanners would be effective. Here's why: > >Gnutella still exists, Napster doesn't! Security does not have to be > bulletproof in all cases. Gnutella is a harder target than was Napster. > There may be other reasons why Gnutella is alive and Napster is dead. > I would think the ability to pin blame on the target might be another > reason. > Right. Napster is an entity, Gnutella is a protocol. >A scan enabled Gnutella would be a much harder target than a central > service provided Gnutella. The scan enabled version would be much harder to > shut down due to various kinds of expenses - legal, administ- > rative, politics, etc.. Not impossible to shut down - just harder, > slower, and with various expenses we would like the oppressors to pick > up :-) > No. The scan version would make it a little harder for everyone to find the first gnutella server to connect to, and that's all it would do. The only way a scan version would make any sense would be if it somehow became illegal to post a list of gnutella servers while it remained legal to actually run a gnutella server, a situation so bizzare I don't think it merits discussion. >As far as Joseph Ashwood's claim that the Internet overhead would be > too much. Is his point exaggerated? Would it be possible to write low > overhead scanners? I do not have the "skill set" to say. Maybe he is > right, maybe not. Anybody got something definitive to say on this? > > Yours Truly, > Gary Jeffers > Atwood's numbers are based on estimates as to how many people want to use scanners, and the fact that they're pretty likely to hit the same set of addresses. If you're the only one using a scanner, it won't be much of a burden on anyone. It really wouldn't be difficult to write one. Here's the URL of the protocol spec http://www.gnutelladev.com/protocol/gdnp.html basically, all you have to do is send it a UDP packet saying 'GDNP CONNECT/0.10\n\n' and see if you get back 'GDNP OK\n\n' it may be worth your while just to see if you can get it to work as an excercise. If you're running your own server and just look at your own IP address (use 127.0.0.1 if you don't know it) you can play with it without affecting the outside world. George > BEAT STATE!!! > > > > _ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > >
Re: Lawyers, Guns, and Money
On 25 Aug 2001, at 21:39, Jim Windle wrote: As an addendum I would add Claude Shannon. In fact I can't think of a single lawyer in the 20th century who had the long term influesnce on society that either Shannon or von Neumann did. The list of other influential non-lawyers might also be expanded to include Turing, Godel, von Braun, Crick and Watson. Washington's myopia in thinking olny lawyers are worth listening to is indicative of the type of government we have. Jim Don't forget Muhammed Ali and Andrew Dice Clay. I know you've only been listing scientists, but you said non-lawyers. Anyone who gets a lot of attention, for whatever reasom, is likely to be able to have a hell of a lot more influence on society than most lawyers or politicians. George
Re: Reporter's shield laws
On Sunday, August 26, 2001, at 09:02 AM, David Honig wrote: At 06:12 PM 8/25/01 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: I agree that John Young should be considered a reporter. And also a ... Still, I think it's possible to differentiate between people involved or suspected of being involved in a criminal act (Clinton, Tripp, Condit, perhaps Vinnie, in your example) and neutral observers and commentators. Ho-ho, but JY is a known subscriber/contributor to the same Conspiracy List as JB, CJ, etc. (As are you..) Ergo, a sufficiently rabid [per|pro]secutor could strip you of your 'neutrality'. (What's to stop Vinnie from starting a website covering the Mob to gain journalists' protections?) What's to stop a prosecutor for arguing that a journalist who publishes mostly in, e.g., lefty mags is not part of the Conspiracy du jour? What you and Tim ought to consider IMHO is that the 5th amendment's protection against self-incrimination protects everyone, and journalists don't need 'special' status under such a reading. Except that all it takes is for the judge to grant the witness transactional or use immunity. Or even full immunity (less common, from what I hear). Mr. McCullagh, the court hereby grants you transactional immunity for your testimony today. Now Mr. McCullagh, please answer the prosecutors questions and give the court all of your notes made regarding this witness. Much on the Net. Here's just a flavoring: Title 18 U.S.C. ' 6002 provides use immunity instead of transactional immunity. The difference between transactional and use immunity is that transactional immunity protects the witness from prosecution for the offense or offenses involved, whereas use immunity only protects the witness against the government's use of his or her immunized testimony in a prosecution of the witness -- except in a subsequent prosecution for perjury or giving a false statement. Tim again: I'm not a lawyer, but I read about cases like this. And there were dozens of hours of discussion about use immunity, transactional immunity, etc. during recent high-profile televised cases. The notion that a witness can blithely escape having to testify by asserting the 5th Amendment is one of those folk beliefs that just doesn't hold up. --Tim May
summer reading
Any recommendations for good (late) summer reading? Svejk .
which remailer to install?
Any recommendations for a worthwhile packages I can run on the local 128/768 (loaded) line? Pointers to tarballs preferrable. -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204/;leitl/a __ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3
Re: CDR: Re: Reporter's shield laws
On Sun, 26 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: Except that all it takes is for the judge to grant the witness transactional or use immunity. Or even full immunity (less common, from what I hear). Much on the Net. Here's just a flavoring: Title 18 U.S.C. ' 6002 provides use immunity instead of transactional immunity. The difference between transactional and use immunity is that transactional immunity protects the witness from prosecution for the offense or offenses involved, whereas use immunity only protects the witness against the government's use of his or her immunized testimony in a prosecution of the witness -- except in a subsequent prosecution for perjury or giving a false statement. The notion that a witness can blithely escape having to testify by asserting the 5th Amendment is one of those folk beliefs that just doesn't hold up. No thank you, your honor. Followed by a contempt charge. Yes it will be rough, but a citizen can't be forced to accept immunity. Note that this applies to ones speech, not documents. The 4th allows no exceptions once a court order is issued (and there should be none - equal protection) outside of the 5th. Of course the protection of the 5th gets fuzzier as one moves away from questions related to direct issues for one might be prosecuted, that 'witness against himself' part. The catch there is the court is in no place, being ignorant of the facts, to decide what constitutes testimony against oneself (ie 'any criminal case). The 5th would indicate that the only agent suitable to make that call would be the person being asked the question. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. -- natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: Gnutella scanning instead of service providers.
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Gary Jeffers wrote: My fellow Cypherpunks, Ray Dillinger believes that scanning would assist oppressors as much as regular users. Joseph Ashwood agrees with this and further thinks that the Internet overhead of a scanner would be a serious problem. Not really. To that extent, a gnutella scanner is probably already in the hands of any law enforcement types that are interested, and there's no reason gnutella itself ought not benefit from the same technology. Better points, since I need to spell them out, are: (a) If scanning is done in a clumsy way it generates a lot of network traffic and twangs a lot of alarms at various firewalls. (b) scanning is a hot button issue with a fair number of people and could generate complaints. (c) complaints about gnutella scanning would be legal ammo for people who wanted to shut it down. I think that all network applications ought to be able to find other nodes running other copies of the application - but be very careful how you design it, so as not to piss people off. As far as Joseph Ashwood's claim that the Internet overhead would be too much. Is his point exaggerated? Would it be possible to write low overhead scanners? I do not have the skill set to say. Maybe he is right, maybe not. Anybody got something definitive to say on this? A nice low-overhead scanner that doesn't generate complaints, would be a request and response on some other protocol. If you write a little cgi program, say IsGnutellaThere.cgi, and have gnutella users drop it into their apache (or iis, or whatever) directory, then you can make an HTTP request on port 80. IsGnutellaThere.cgi would run and check to see if the gnutella server is up and what port it's on, maybe check a table to find other gnutellas that it knows about, and return that information in an http response. Then gnutella users who wanted to be scannable (and not all of them will) could drop the program into their CGI directory, and scan-enabled gnutellas could just learn how to make a simple HTTP request and keep that table up-to-date for IsGnutellaThere.cgi to access. HTTP is low-overhead and innocuous, and there's already a hole for it in most firewalls. It won't generate alarms. A straight-up scanning approach most definitely will. Bear
Re: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, John Young wrote: See 9-page judgment in TIF format: http://cryptome.org/jdb-hit.tif (262KB) In addition to 10 years Jim was also fined $10,000 due immediately and faces three years of probation. No computer use and a long list of other prohibitions including no direct or indirect contact with the victim in this case, Special Agent Jeff Gordon. Motherfucking sonsofbitching shiteaters. Interesting that JeffG should have his name included in those documents. Isn't he afraid that that order, and his involvement in this case generally, is going to stick up like a lightning rod and attract the attention of lots of folks who would otherwise have ignored him? Bear
Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
On Sunday, August 26, 2001, at 09:13 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Right on target. There is one aspect to this loss of nerve not mentioned: the correlation between those with the means and interest to pursue these avenues and those with merely the interest. There are a couple of points to make on this issue: First, the correlation of interests situation is a well-solved problem. Those with the financial means (and maybe some political/technical interest) set up a company and hire those with the technical abilities and interest. The company may be self-funded by the founders, or outside investors may be sought. However, this is not so easy to do when it comes to these technologies. ZKS did it and raised, we hear, something like $60 million. Quite a warchest for untraceability tools. ZKS has been much-discussed here. There are some major obstacles with such a public company: 1. Patents and IP in general. Doing digital cash without using Chaum's blinding patent may be tough. (Some of the agnostic approaches discussed here may work, technically, but will probably still be litigated. A public company is a public target. The current owners of the Chaum patent, a Canadian company IIRC, will not look dispassionately on other companies doing an end-run.) 2. A public company or traceable group of developers will become targets. The attacks could be just simple legal ones, but could range up to RICO and beyond. Pedophile-grade untraceability is powerful stuff. How long before Mojo faces lawsuits analogous to what Napster faced? (Napster is a good example of this. Utter traceability, of both music traders and the company itself. Those who downloaded or uploaded music got nastygrams and threats of civil action, and the company itself was sued and now faces extinction. It may be that anyone developing such tools should just give up on the idea of becoming a dot com tycoon and instead release products untraceably...perhaps benefitting in other ways.) One of this list's members shopped here and elsewhere a few years back for participation in building a DBC-based payment and value system. He had assembled a team with the banking experience, needing the technology implementors. None were willing to put their talents to the test. They all nodded regarding the need for such a facility but none would expend any efforts. If you are talking about Bob Hettinga, there are many things one could say about his schemes and plans. I'm more impressed with what another person is actually doing: Orlin Grabbe. Do some Web searches. Orlin has good banking credentials himself (Wharton, coined the term regulatory arbitrage), good libertarian credentials (a powerful newsletter for many years), some technical abilities (writes code), has been willing to move to places like Costa Rica, and, most importantly, he UNDERSTANDS the sweet spot argument. Bob H., in my opinion, got too fixated on coining new acronyms and in flitting around to various lists and focussed in on the wrong end of the cost/benefit continuum. He kept claiming the DBC or E$bux or whatever would be cheaper to use than real money. Anyway, it is not easy to create a public company, a public nexus of attack, and then deploy systems which target that high-value sweet spot. The real bankers and the regulators won't allow such things into the official banking system. (Why do people think the banking system will embrace digital bearer bonds having untraceability features when true bearer bonds were eliminated years ago?) They were all being courted by the failed dot.bombs which waved generous salary and stock offers. Now that the tulip market has evaporated along with the dreams of quick riches I wonder if any these pseudo-zealots were ever really interested or was it a merely a childish fancy from the start? As Tim demonstrates the opportunity is still there it waits only for those with the right stuff to grab for the ring. I know several list members who started or joined Mojo. I know several who started or joined C2. I know several who joined ZKS. I know several who joined Digicash. The problem has not been that Cypherpunks were so greedy they went to work for Pets.com instead of ZKS, C2, Mojo, or Digicash. The problems were with the ability of those companies to make money, for lots of reasons. My interest is not in doing a Cypherpunks Business Review dissection of these companies and their (possible) failings. Frankly, I don't think the let's form a corporation!' model is the best one in all cases, particularly in this one. Maybe I'll say more about this in another post. --Tim May
Re: Reporter's shield laws
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 09:55:05AM -0700, Tim May wrote: Except that all it takes is for the judge to grant the witness transactional or use immunity. Or even full immunity (less common, from what I hear). Mr. McCullagh, the court hereby grants you transactional immunity for your testimony today. Now Mr. McCullagh, please answer the prosecutors questions and give the court all of your notes made regarding this witness. I didn't assert the 5A, but the 1A, during my brief experience before the Grumpy Judge. What Tim and Dave and John seem not to understand is that journalists routinely refuse to reveal their sources even when threatened with subpoenas and contempt of court. Some editors will only hire reporters who pledge they'll go to jail before revealing a source. Some journalists may be schmucks -- the local reporter in the Bell case who took the stand and blabbed for the better part of an hour is one example -- but many are principled. This may make prosecutors leery of calling them in the first place. Only 10-20 professional journalists in the last two decades have been imprisoned, usually for a period not exceeding a few days, for not revealing their sources. See the Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press for details. -Declan
