Lance Cottrell <loki@infonex.com> writes:
At 10:58 AM -0500 12/20/97, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: <SNIP>
I also wouldn't trust Lance Cottrell. He's selling privacy for the $$, not for the ideology; he'll bend over the moment he thinks there's more $$ in bending over, which is usually the case. Remember how Sameer Parekh's C2Net used to try to peddle a "privacy ISP" because he failed miserable and diversified into peddiling shitty software and making idiotic legal threats? He happily pulled plugs bases on content, while at the same time stating in court papers that he doesn't censor conten What a pathological liar.
I am very glad some helpful anonymous individual forwarded this note to me. These days I only read a filtered version of the Cypherpunks, although I host one of the unfiltered nodes, and Dr. Vulis has been in my kill file for some time.
I presume he won't see this response then.
I am a bit startled at his assumption that because I charge for my services that I would bend at the first sign of trouble or pressure. Allow me to
No, this is not my reasoning. I've concluded, based on the analysis of numerous quotes from Cottrell, that he sounds like an opponent of anonymity, privacy, and free speech (witness his attacks on "HipCrime", his censorship of "spam" (the term now used by censors to describe any content they don't approve of) et al - just use DejaNews). An "anti-spammer" selling "privacy" services is a lot like a devout nun working as a prostitute to support her convent - she does it for the money, but her heart won't be in it. Of course I respect lance's right to hold whatever beliefs he chooses and to oppose free speech. However I advise anyone against trusting a person who states that he opposes "spam" (defined as any content he doesn't like). If you use "Anonymizer", Lance will know who you are, and he states on his web site that he will reveal your identity if you "abuse" his service (which might well mean simply expressing an opinion that Lance doesn't like and judges to be "spam"). if Lance Cottrell wants to salvage the remains of his credibility, he should state unequivocally that he supports "spam" as defined by Chris Lewis. [snip]
Dr. Vulis' attack on Sameer was much worse than his attack on me. It is totally off base. Sameer handed off most of his "privacy ISP" business to me. The reason for this was not that it was failing, but that the software side of the business was so much more successful. About half his efforts were going toward a service generating about 10% of his revenues. Not to focus his efforts would have been very poor business practice.
As documented before, Sameer closed shop on C2net as a "privacy" ISP at about the same time (Oct 96) as a) Software Publishers Association sued him for software privacy and he was claiming in court papers that he doesn't censor content (as well as whining on this mailing list and begging for help) b) he simultaneously pulled the plug on one of his subscribers because he didn't like the contents of that subscibers's web page, which expressed critical opinions about Timmy May. This proves, in my opinion, that Sameer is a pathological liar. Further his settlement with SPA was a miserable failure for him, Sameer is also notorious for making legal threats against those who question the security of the crypto software he peddles. The fact that he dispatches his shysters to make threats, instead of even trying to answer our concerns with facts, shows how much he himself believes in his products. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps