19 expanded posts ยท every known parent and child
>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? Don't they go through visa before they debit your account? --Internaut
Internaut <unde0275@frank.mtsu.edu> 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
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C'punks,
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.
S a n d y
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~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
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C'punks,
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.
S a n d y
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~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??
Bill Frantz wrote: > 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. Are there any critereon established, yet, as to what type of content will be necessary for a letter to get 'lost'?
At 9:19 PM -0800 1/19/97, WinSock Remailer wrote:
>Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com> 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, USABill Frantz wrote: > 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. It sounds like you're laying the groundwork for debunking CypherPunk conspiracy myths before they even appear. Not that I'm the paranoid type (but I 'would' be interested in knowing exacly where you 'claim' you were when J.F.K. was shot). Toto
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SANDY SANDFORT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C'punks,
On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
> 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??
>
>
Dale, don't be such an ass. If "everyone understood that the
uncensored (sic) list was untouchable" then why have you and
others continued to challenge that proposition. You have put
forward the classic heads-I-win-tails-you-lose logical fallacy.
If I say nothing to support the proposition you whine about a
"hidden agenda." If I reaffirm my commitment to the plan, you
spout pop psychological nonsense of the "the lady doth protest
too much variety." Which is it, Dale? You are so transparent.
S a n d y
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sandy Sandfort wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > > 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?? > Dale, don't be such an ass. If "everyone understood that the > uncensored (sic) list was untouchable" then why have you and > others continued to challenge that proposition. You have put > forward the classic heads-I-win-tails-you-lose logical fallacy. > If I say nothing to support the proposition you whine about a > "hidden agenda." If I reaffirm my commitment to the plan, you > spout pop psychological nonsense of the "the lady doth protest > too much variety." Which is it, Dale? You are so transparent. 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, i.e., a transparent attempt to fool the public into accepting that the edited list is the *real, original* list, despite the dis- claimer put forth in the introduction to the new plan (a paragraph that few will read, and much fewer will remember). 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. As far as hidden agendas go, the flip side of that coin is that I'm expected to believe that Gilmore is the Mother Teresa of the Internet, or something like that. Personally, I don't care what scam you or he could possibly (hypothetically) be involved in, as long as it doesn't impinge on certain essential liberties and truths, in a way that offends me. If you insist that what you and he are doing is totally non-profit, has nothing to do with government grants or spying, etc., and is purely a personal hobby-type pursuit, well, I don't really believe in the Easter Bunny, and please forgive me for not believing this one. Note that I'm not attacking you purely because I'm alleging (hypothetically) that you have an ulterior motive for the work you're doing on cypherpunks, I'm merely pointing out reasonable speculations which could account for what's happening here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sandy Sandfort wrote: > 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. Lookie here, folks. This is the flaming jerk who'll be editing your posts to the list. Note that we have a NEW admission from the Sandy man: the unedited list was NOT in fact a given. BTW, John Gilmore says just the opposite. > 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). Again, contrary to Gilmore's statement(s). Who is this guy, and is he taking over Gilmore's persona or something?
Dale Thorn wrote: > > 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?? > I am getting tired now, but here is a proposed solution. You suspect Prof. Sandfort in an intention to edit "unedited" list. You do not trust administrators of toad.com. I hope though that there are people whom you somewhat trust. 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. You can encourage all people, whom you expect to be censored on the unedited list, to post through cypherpunks@algebra.com. I can even set up a little program that would digitally sign receipts of all messages coming to cypherpunks@algebra.com. You and anyone else can receive such receipts. It means that you, Dale Thorn, in cooperation with other readers but WITHOUT cooperation from toad.com, will be able to see which articles sent through algebra.com finally made it to the unedited list. Not all posters will use such service, but you can expect the "censored" people to do so. 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. - Igor.
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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
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 <frantz@netcom.com> 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.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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~