On Wed, 1 May 1996, Moltar Ramone wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 1996 angels@wavenet.com wrote:
The Internet is beyond the stage of small communities exercising informal social controls (peer pressure).
I disagree. It is your community, and your involvement can still make a difference. When all you do is turn away, or complain to the authorities, rather than becomming involved, the "crime rate" goes up, and the authorities respond by raising taxes, passing laws, and putting more police on the streets. Most spammers just don't know any better. One of the sites I manage started choking on spam that was a "mailing list" of a few hundred email addresses in the "cc:" field. A polite email message to the offender, and another to their ISP, was all that was needed to stop the problem. Took much less time than reading this thread. :)
Disagree strongly. The net is a LARGE number of SMALL communities. This is why spammers are so offensive: they trespass and violate boundries. This is why killfiles were invented. You ask about people who don't know about killfiles. Teach them. This requires no formal organization.
paradise. Does anyone really doubt the extent of State control and power across the Net?
Yes. If there was state control of the Internet, there probably wouldn't be any anonymous remailers. And the Cyberangels would go away.
I doubt this. One can still get a "blind" post office box rather easily. Why would the 'net be any different?
My point is that this is inevitable.
Very few things are inevitable; that's a very strong word. The Cypherpunk Agenda is to provide exactly those tools which make this "inevitable" thing absolutely impossible.
You're taking a stand on the minority side of a viewpoint; society can, and might, fight back by making your tools themselves illegal, rather than the uses you put them to. At least in the U.S., you can fall back on the Bill of Rights, but the CDA is a prime example of the erosian of even our most fundamental protection.
The Internet is a mirror of the rest of the world, not a new form of society, and I fail to understand why anyone should be surprised that that is the case.
Disagree modestly.
I disagree with this statement. I do not believe that laws breed more laws nor that laws lead to less freedom. I believe bad laws compromise freedom (eg CDA) while good laws protect freedom.
The problem is that we're running a bit short on the "good laws" side, at least here in the U.S. Election-year stupidity has again set in, and our (mostly uninformed) leaders are racing to anything involving regulation of the 'net, as it's a sure way to get into the public eye. Take the "minor bit" as an example of a hasty and ill-thought-out p.r. stunt ...
Have you taken a good hard _honest_ look at the War on Drugs? I also believe that bad laws compromise freedom and good laws protect freedom. One of the problems is that good laws often breed bad laws to patch things up.
Cryptography enhances and protects privacy, which does not inevitably lead to greater security. Security for the sender, yes, in that no one else can read the message, but security for the Community? Doesnt that depend what the message said?
If I send snail, there are "rules" governing who can open the envelope. If I'm suspected of criminal activity, the community has recourse. The 'net is different. The envelope is always open. I suppose this falls right into the trap of giving the govt. key escrow, which I'm against, but that's another story ...
No. True security for the community rests in a shared social standard which discourages actions which are harmful to the community or individuals. Security which requires a class of Guardians to protect everyone else is not security. It's safety, but it's temporary safety. Jon Lasser ---------- Jon Lasser (410)494-3072 - Obscenity is a crutch for jlasser@rwd.goucher.edu inarticulate motherfuckers. http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/ Finger for PGP key (1024/EC001E4D) - Fuck the CDA.