At 01:34 PM 9/21/96 -0400, hallam@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote:
[AP drivel deleted]
[Examples of where AP would fail deleted]
Both the assumption AP rests on are utterly false. It is neither possible to assasinate people at will nor will it intimidate.
In addition *ANYONE* who attempted to implement AP would be someone *I* would regard as a tyrant and therefore a legitimate target by the rules of AP. I would naturally consider it permissable to engage the support of others in their suppression. Since we now live in the fantasy land of AP I can now wipe out anyone anywhere so I eliminate all AP leaders.
I'd buy that for a dollar! I would expect that only a small portion of the "targets" on an actual AP system would be political figures. People have a far broader range of people they would like to see eliminated. How many "hits" would John Tesh have gotten after the Olympics? How many "hits" would Urkel get after anyone actually watched him on TV? These powers could be used for good or evil! People do not just want to kill politicians. Many of them would like to kill people they find annoying in their general lives. TV stars. Advertising executives. Bosses. Bill Gates. Brings stalking to a new level! Say a company came out with an Internet browser that was considered the "market leader". A less scrupulous competitor (who has a large company and lots of cash) could afford to have key personnel off-ed as a part of "doing business". (And it would not have to be the figureheads. Less well-known people in charge of key areas, like security could be off-ed.) Is your job important to KILL FOR? They could even hide it in the sales and promotion budget. It could change the face of business forever! Who do you want to kill today? There is no mechanism to assure that AP is used for only the people that Mr. Bell would like to see killed. If it is implemented, then EVERYONE is a target.
I think that this type of talk is incredibly dangerous. There are plenty of people on the net who are psychos and if you spread AP drivel arround someone is going to act on it. Probably not Jim Bell, more likely a psychopath who lurks on the list but does not post.
Actually, I would expect that the various government agencies would do their best to track down those trying to implement such a system. Governments do not take competition lightly. The odds of getting a real hit man are also small. The FBI has agents who frequently pose as hit men for the sole purpose of tracking down those who want to eliminate their friends and neighbors. Only organized crime and government have easy access to assassination. ("Government Access to assassination" Escrow anyone?)
If you call for people to be murdered - and let us not forget that this is what AP is about you bear the responsibility when someone acts on it.
I do not think that Mr. Bell is willing to examine the moral consequences of the things that he advocates. (He would get alot more respect from me if he would own up to it and admit he is wanting to see mass murder for hire.) There seems to be a big blind spot here. It would also be a great excuse for the bluenoses who want to regulate the net into extinction. (Advocating murder is not taken well in our society, even if the targets deserve it.)
I consider AP to be very close to calling for the assasination of the President of the USA. That is a federal crime and there is a law that requires the investigation of any such threats. I suggest that people think *very* carefully before engaging in this dangerous nonsense any further.
Facilitating the murder of others through hiring of hit men is illegal no matter who the target is. I wonder how he would find a service provider that would dare host the site. I know of no "data haven" that would risk having a murder for hire server anywhere near their site. They would find their feed cut pretty quick or feel the sting of legal liability or both. (Part of being a "data haven" is not to attract attention to yourself. The first rule of not being seen is "Don't stand up".)
PS it is not censorship to stop people from advocating murder.
I disagree with this conclusion. It IS censorship. The only thing that seems to change it is the subject matter. If it was changed to "it is not censorship to stop people from advocating cryptography" or "unrestrained sex" or "destruction of the ruling party" would you still agree? Sometimes advocating murder is considered valid. (As the various people in the media talking about how "we should have offed Husain (sp?).) How do you make the distinction. Whoever is in power this week? I think not. Besides, if you want to weed the nut cases out of society, you let them advocate such things in public. Makes it easier to cart them away before they hurt someone. (Unless they are in Government office. By then, it is too late.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Black Art blackart@ctrl-alt-del.com "The Government will mind its own business the day that Malcolm McDowell becomes a spokesman for Crisco."