In article <9507102137.AA26662@spirit.aud.alcatel.com> droelke@spirit.aud.alcatel.com (Daniel R. Oelke) writes:
Why is Dyson of EFF enthusiastic about the concept?
Because as moderators add value to the vast amount of stuff out there. Why do some people pay to get a restricted subset of the cypherpunks? Because they don't want the massive flow of wide open communications and they *trust* the person giving them the subset. Moderators provide a great service, and it is finially being recognized as such in a monetary way. I think that this is a great thing! I agree that moderated groups are useful at keeping the SNR high, and are a great choice for those who can't or haven't time to set up their own filters. However, they can't solve the problems that the Internet is popularly supposed to have (e.g. no provisions for eliminating parental responsibility). Even supposing that US ISPs are *prohibited by law* from carrying unmoderated Usenet groups, how does this address all of the other services (current and future) that can be carried by the Internet? Sorry, the horse is out of the stable, and the only 99% control option open to the government now is cutting the phone lines at the border. If an individual (e.g. a parent) wants to limit net access for certain services to emasculated resources, perhaps Microsoft Restrict (TM) and Prodigy can provide a desired service. Otherwise, the solution to the problem has to lie closer to home. -- Roger Williams -- Coelacanth Engineering -- Middleborough, Mass #!/usr/local/bin/perl -s-- -export-a-crypto-system-sig -RSA-in-3-lines-PERL ($k,$n)=@ARGV;$m=unpack(H.$w,$m."\0"x$w),$_=`echo "16do$w 2+4Oi0$d*-^1[d2% Sa2/d0<X+d*La1=z\U$n%0]SX$k"[$m*]\EszlXx++p|dc`,s/^.|\W//g,print pack('H*' ,$_)while read(STDIN,$m,($w=2*$d-1+length($n||die"$0 [-d] k n\n")&~1)/2)