I know most of you don't use Usenet anymore... Nevertheless, I'd appreciate any help. ---guy # From: guy+U2_Czars_suck@panix.com # Subject: Re: EFF Director calls for requiring digital signatures for Net access # Newsgroups: comp.org.cauce,comp.org.eff.talk # Followup-To: comp.org.cauce,comp.org.eff.talk # Organization: Information Security at NYC, Third Planet From the Sun T. Max Devlin <mdevlin@eltrax.com> wrote: : On 20 Dec 1997 05:28:35 -0500, Cipher <cipher@mindspring.com> wrote: : >The CAUCE group is just getting started and *Digital Signatures* are : >mentioned in the same breath with anti-UCE techniques. From knowing : >absolutely who everyone is to knowing absolutely what everyone is saying : >seems a logical progression. I see the *Good users are known users* : >mentality as the leading edge of draconian restrictions on Usenet and : >e-mail that are in the works. : It is not a logical progression. : Nevertheless, civility (which is what we're trying to achieve) : requires a balance between individual "rights" of privacy and : public knowledge of who is saying what. A "balance" between "privacy" and "public knowledge of who is saying what"??? Like the FBI wants a "balance" between the rights of people to use cryptography and law enforcement concerns? You are truly a nutcake. T. Max Devlin <mdevlin@eltrax.com> wrote: : This extremist view that to be able to identify who is saying something is : automatically the same as censorship is getting more and more ludicrous. The US Supreme Court disagrees with you regarding anonymous speech. T. Max Devlin <mdevlin@eltrax.com> wrote: : Without rational examination of the issues, the ultimate solution will : inevitably be that the Internet is unusable for public discourse. Imminent death of the Internet, film at 11. An MIT study has shown civility is *unnatural* among heavy email users. Even Russ Allbery will through out a "bullshit" and more now and then, or do you want to argue about what "civility" means? ---- What does civility mean to Usenet II Czars? It means deleting off-topic posts (which they've done), because they are "abusive". # * [usenet2] A New Virtual Community # * From: Stephanie da Silva <arielle@bonkers.taronga.com> # * Reply-To: usenet2@usenet.com # * Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 03:12:04 -0500 (CDT) # # I'm somewhat disillusioned because two of my favorite newsgroups seem # to be plagued by a similar problem -- an increase in off-topic chatter. # # This has gone to the point on one of the groups # where some people have actually adopted an OFF-TOPIC keyword and use it # in subject headers. # # In a very recent discussion where I pointed out that this went against # ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^ # the very foundation of Usenet and that off-topic threads were 100% noise, # ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^ # a user that has been posting less than a year and a half (from Netcom) # patiently explained to me how she felt the main appeal of the newsgroup # was its diverse nature and that she found the off-topic threads # "invigorating." # # So I guess my point is I wish there were some mechanism in place to # reinforce that newsgroups are focused discussion groups and not informal # chat rooms or coffee klatches. People are not taking it to email the # way they tended to in the "good old days." # # I was just talking about this with someone in email. She described an # incident that had happened on rec.arts.books. Someone flamed (ironically # enough) Mike Godwin for posting off-topic. She said Godwin's response # ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ # was that rec.arts.books was not a place for talking about books per se, # but a place where 'bookish' people could get together and chat. # # That pretty much sums up the point I was trying to make. What else? What have the U2 Czars controlling CAUCE also done? Not allowed the admin of a one-way remailer who returned the required token for posting to comp.org.cauce to post here; no explanation given despite repeated requests. That's not "civil", Max. ---- T. Max Devlin <mdevlin@eltrax.com> wrote: : Authentication is a required capability of any multi-user communications system. Apparently you have never heard of pay-phones, 900 re-dial services, etc. : The question is not whether we can get away without it (in the long run, I fear, : we cannot). The question is how we can implement it in a rational fashion that : isn't too slanted one way or the other between personal and public desires. The question is: how can control-freaks like you be beaten to a bloody pul^W^W^W^W back? ---guy