Re: Dr. Vulis' social engineering experiment

Also Sprach Adam Back:
> 
> It is my belief
> that his posts can only be understood in a "meta" sense -- he is
> engaged in a highly complex cryptographic experiment.  People who read
> and respond to his individual posts are the unwitting subjects in his
> experiments.  His posts and the responses to them are actually the
> data-set for a thorough cryptanalysis of mailing list threats.  His
> current topic under investigation is Denial of Service (DoS) attacks
> on mailing lists.

I agree that this is what is being done, but the experiment dorsn't have
as much to do with cryptanalysis as much as it has to do with sociology. 
 The limits here are not mathematical and static, they are social and
based on the limits of tolerance of both the group and the individual. 

> I await with interest the last phases of Dimitri's experiment, when
> the cypherpunks list becomes a moderated forum.

That appears to be the main brunt of his efforts, to "push the envelope"
of free speech in order to force it's definition. Perhaps to exhibit
the necessity for a controlling authority, and thus justify the existence
of the various agencies which are trying to control the flow of 
information in this country and elsewhere. 

> I hope Dimitri's selfless efforts in furthering understanding of DoS
> attacks on mailing lists is properly acknowledged when he publishes
> his findings on completion of his experiments.  I also hope that
> Dimitri will document his recommendations for mailing list
> configuration and management in light of his experiments.
 
I would not say that what he is doing is a bit selfless, the Clipper
Chip crowd are probably lining his pockets in a big way. That's 
acknowledgement enough for me. :-/ 
 
"In peacetime, a warlike man sets upon himself." -- Nietzsche

-- 
Marcus: "They'll try to kill you."         |
Xena: "Oh, I still have a few tricks       | "Here we GO!!!" 
       left up my sleeve...I don't         |           -- Jane's Addiction
       have any sleeves!" -- Xena bloopers |

Jane Jefferson wrote: 
> Also Sprach Adam Back:
> > I await with interest the last phases of Dimitri's experiment, when
> > the cypherpunks list becomes a moderated forum.
> 
> That appears to be the main brunt of his efforts, to "push the envelope"
> of free speech in order to force it's definition. Perhaps to exhibit
> the necessity for a controlling authority, and thus justify the existence
> of the various agencies which are trying to control the flow of
> information in this country and elsewhere.

  If what you say is true, then Dr. DV K's efforts are quite possibly 
the most important issue being addressed in this conference, because
behind free speech, lies the most important issue of all--when does
it start, and when does it stop.

  Cryptography, above all, enables the ability of a group or an
individual
to keep their communications secret, safe from prying eyes.
  The military-industrial complex proclaims this necessary for the
purposes of state-security, and denies that it is used in order to keep 
their 'sins' from being exposed. (If you believe this, then please 
contact me by private email regarding an ocean-front property I have
available in Tucson, AZ.  If you act quickly, I will throw in a set
of the Amazing Ginzu Knives as an added bonus.)
   The crypto-cognizant citizen proclaims cryptographical ability as
a means of empowering their rights of free speech.  The more intelligent
of them recognize as misinformation the government's feeble claims that
they cannot successfully investigate someone moving tons of illegal
drugs into the country unless they have the capacity to eavesdrop on
the private correspondences of 'all' of their citizens. (Which is the
equivalent, in my mind, of claiming that AIDS cannot be held in check
without knowing the details of all of the citizens sex-lives.)

  In short, I believe that if the issue of free speech is not one of
the central issues on the CypherPunks list, then the list is merely
one more heartless, unfeeling extension of the Great Machine which
is grinding inexorably forward toward the day when we will all have
its numbers tattoo'd on our forearms.
  As far as I am concerned, any CypherPunk who believes that the
socio/politico issues surrounding cryptography are not important
enough to be an integral part of this list is falling into the
same type of trap as those who think that they can become good
cryptographers without becoming good cryptanalysts.  Those who
seek to become merely cryptographers seem to think that 'numbers
rule'--those who seek to be able to analyze the end-result of 
those 'numbers' realize that the minds, hearts and souls 'behind'
those numbers tell the story of how people think and feel, and
the motivations behind their cryptographical intent. (And also
reveals where their vulnerabilities lie.)
  Thinking that cryptography is about 'numbers' is akin to thinking
that equality is about 'skin-color'.

> "In peacetime, a warlike man sets upon himself." -- Nietzsche

  "In times of war, a peacelike man sets upon others."
       Bubba Rom Dos

Toto

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C-punks,

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Toto wrote:

>   In short, I believe that if the issue of free speech is not one of
> the central issues on the CypherPunks list, then the list is merely
> one more heartless, unfeeling extension of the Great Machine which
> is grinding inexorably forward toward the day when we will all have
> its numbers tattoo'd on our forearms.

While free speech is an undeniably important topic, It is just
one of many that could be discussed on this list.  A concern for
protecting privacy was the raison d'etre for the creation of the 
Cypherpunks list.  And technological self-help was always the 
modus operandi of choice.  Obviously, speech and privacy issues
are related, but they are not synonymous.  Again, I am not saying
Cypherpunks do not care about free speech issues.  There focus,
though, is on achieving privacy through technological means.
Works for me.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Also Sprach Toto:
> 
>   If what you say is true, then Dr. DV K's efforts are quite possibly 
> the most important issue being addressed in this conference, because
> behind free speech, lies the most important issue of all--when does
> it start, and when does it stop.

Exactly. 
 
>   The military-industrial complex proclaims this necessary for the
> purposes of state-security, and denies that it is used in order to keep 
> their 'sins' from being exposed. (If you believe this, then please 
> contact me by private email regarding an ocean-front property I have
> available in Tucson, AZ.  If you act quickly, I will throw in a set
> of the Amazing Ginzu Knives as an added bonus.)

The heart and soul of the problem is that "sin", "freedom", "good", 
and "evil" are abstract concepts which fluctuate from individual to 
individual. If Dr. Vulis is indeed an adjunct professor at Fordham 
University, I think that perhaps he has been hanging out and drinking
too many beers with my former philosophy professor Quentin Lauer. ;-7 

>    The crypto-cognizant citizen proclaims cryptographical ability as
> a means of empowering their rights of free speech.  The more intelligent
> of them recognize as misinformation the government's feeble claims that
> they cannot successfully investigate someone moving tons of illegal
> drugs into the country unless they have the capacity to eavesdrop on
> the private correspondences of 'all' of their citizens. (Which is the
> equivalent, in my mind, of claiming that AIDS cannot be held in check
> without knowing the details of all of the citizens sex-lives.)
 
Governments, however, are made up of the very same people who claim
to require these rights to privacy. Those people create, codify and 
enforce the laws. The problem is that the people who find themselves in 
this position of power are not always the most moral or concerned with 
the best interest of the majority. 

And fiendishly, it is the very chaos and anarchy and random chance 
espoused by proponents of the cypherpunk philosophy that allows these
people to gain this power, unchecked! 
 
Thus, the real problem ends up being not "how to control the government
so that the government doesn't control us", but "how to deal with the 
government when it goes into control-freak mode". That it will go into
such a mode is a given -- based on human nature and history. This is
a fundamental cycle of evolution and human behavior. We have to face
the fact that humans are predators, and as long as we are, the 
cycle of this behavior will continue. 

The human race has not evolved to such a point where privacy is not an
essential thing. If tomorrow everyone turned instantly telepathic and 
we all were capable of knowing each other's thoughts, you'd best believe
the suicide rate would be beyond belief. Buisnesses would instantly 
fail, countries would instantly be absorbed by other countries, many 
relationships based on love and trust would be destroyed. 

And during that time, the deadliest person alive - the toughest and 
the meanest, and the most effective in the face of all the chaos, would
not be the person who was capable of preserving their privacy. Rather,
it would be the one who was capable of surviving in it's complete 
absence. 

This is not to denigrate the efforts of the cypherpunks, but merely to
point out an area that they may not have thought of as a method to
battle the trend towards fascism. 

-- 
Marcus: "They'll try to kill you."         | "You won't see me in 
Xena: "Oh, I still have a few tricks       | front, but you can't 
       left up my sleeve...I don't         | leave me behind!" 
       have any sleeves!" -- Xena bloopers |                 -- YES

Jane Jefferson wrote:
> Also Sprach Toto:[snip]
> And fiendishly, it is the very chaos and anarchy and random chance
> espoused by proponents of the cypherpunk philosophy that allows these
> people to gain this power, unchecked![snip]
> We have to face the fact that humans are predators, and as long as
> we are, the cycle of this behavior will continue.

Jane is showing signs of independent thought.  Tsk tsk.

> The human race has not evolved to such a point where privacy is not an
> essential thing. If tomorrow everyone turned instantly telepathic and
> we all were capable of knowing each other's thoughts, you'd best believe
> the suicide rate would be beyond belief. Buisnesses would instantly
> fail, countries would instantly be absorbed by other countries, many
> relationships based on love and trust would be destroyed.
> And during that time, the deadliest person alive - the toughest and
> the meanest, and the most effective in the face of all the chaos, would
> not be the person who was capable of preserving their privacy. Rather,
> it would be the one who was capable of surviving in it's complete absence.

Telepathy would do no good.  You can (if you're hooked into someone's
"consciousness") see the general outlines of thought, feel some of the
emotions, etc., but the construction of one's abstract thoughts can't
be interpreted by an observing person or computer.  There are too many
variables and random influences.  Perhaps someday the quantum machines
will make headway there.  In the meantime, we can imitate, but we can't
speak the full language, a la Star Trek IV.

BTW, the suicide rate would not go ballistic, since the suicide rate
as reported today is largely ficticious anyway.  People would switch
to survival mode *very* quickly, which would have the beneficial effect
of taking their minds off of their pre-survival-crisis problems.

Jane Jefferson wrote:
> 
> The heart and soul of the problem is that "sin", "freedom", "good", 
> and "evil" are abstract concepts which fluctuate from individual to 
> individual.

An excellent point, Jane. Worth remembering.

	- Igor.

On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:

> Jane Jefferson wrote:
> > 
> > The heart and soul of the problem is that "sin", "freedom", "good", 
> > and "evil" are abstract concepts which fluctuate from individual to 
> > individual.
> 
> An excellent point, Jane. Worth remembering.

	Why not archive it ...as it may be worth something someday....

oksas

Jane Jefferson wrote:
> 
> If Dr. Vulis is indeed an adjunct professor at Fordham
> University, I think that perhaps he has been hanging out and drinking
> too many beers with my former philosophy professor Quentin Lauer. ;-7

  All the good computer people have degrees in Political Philosophy,
and the like. People with actual computer science degrees, etc., 
seem to be more astute at office politics, however. It's a strange
world.

> And fiendishly, it is the very chaos and anarchy and random chance
> espoused by proponents of the cypherpunk philosophy that allows these
> people to gain this power, unchecked!

  I think that the 'cypherpunk philosophy' is history, now. It seems to
me that many of the CypherPunks have gotten their piece of the pie and
are mostly concerned with big business Cypher, and wish that the Punks
would just go away.
  There is always an essential element behind every movement, and those
who are active in espousing the tenets of that movement, be they the
'suits' or the 'jeans', are seldom any more than mouthpieces for
those who continue to work toward essential goals no matter what
the surface manifestations of a group seem to indicate.

> Thus, the real problem ends up being not "how to control the government
> so that the government doesn't control us", but "how to deal with the
> government when it goes into control-freak mode".
> the deadliest person alive - the toughest and
> the meanest, and the most effective in the face of all the chaos, would
> not be the person who was capable of preserving their privacy. Rather,
> it would be the one who was capable of surviving in it's complete
> absence.

  It might well be that the purpose of evolution is to weed out those
who cannot
survive in both scenarios.
 
> This is not to denigrate the efforts of the cypherpunks, but merely to
> point out an area that they may not have thought of as a method to
> battle the trend towards fascism.

  Many haven't, some have.  Between the Hermit and the Fool, stand many
who are merely occupying a space.
  There are those who theorize that genius' and the insane are the 
forerunners of the new directions humanity will take. I subscribe to
the CypherPunks list so that I can monitor both at the same time.

Toto

On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, Jane Jefferson wrote:
> Also Sprach Toto:
> > 
> >   If what you say is true, then Dr. DV K's efforts are quite possibly 
> > the most important issue being addressed in this conference, because
> > behind free speech, lies the most important issue of all--when does
> > it start, and when does it stop.
> 
> Exactly. 
>  
> >   The military-industrial complex proclaims this necessary for the
> > purposes of state-security, and denies that it is used in order to keep 
> > their 'sins' from being exposed. (If you believe this, then please 
> > contact me by private email regarding an ocean-front property I have
> > available in Tucson, AZ.  If you act quickly, I will throw in a set
> > of the Amazing Ginzu Knives as an added bonus.)
> 
> The heart and soul of the problem is that "sin", "freedom", "good", 
> and "evil" are abstract concepts which fluctuate from individual to 
> individual. If Dr. Vulis is indeed an adjunct professor at Fordham 
> University, I think that perhaps he has been hanging out and drinking
> too many beers with my former philosophy professor Quentin Lauer. ;-7 

	You know smoking causes wrinkles...
	:)