Bryce wrote:

Here is a document I just hacked. I am breaking several of the Rules by posting it, since I am not actually subscribed to cypherpunks right now. Welcome to the cypherpunks mailing list! Starting now, you will receive hundreds of email letters every week on the subject of privacy and social change in an age of cryptographic networks.

[snip]

I. Etiquette -- The House Rules At The Virtual Cypherpunks Party The Meta-Rule: It's John Gilmore's virtual house. He is the sole owner of the computer (toad.com) that hosts cypherpunks and the sole authority over what the users of that computer (you) can do with it.

[mo' snip] Ordinarily, I'd leave this post alone, but I really hate it when people twist ideas for their own philosophical purposes. To whit: "John is the sole authority over what the users of his computer can do with his computer" (quote approximate). I don't *do* anything with *his* computer. I send email into the ether with an address on it, and he picks it up at his discretion and does what he wants with it. I am in no way involved in that process, and I do not share *any* responsibility for how he handles the email. As far as his authority goes, I've been subscribed for several months now, and I don't recall a single statement by Gilmore himself as to what this "authority" thing means. But then, why should he, and why should you? It's patently obvious to anyone with a brain, and we don't need some authoritarian boot-licking computer-bureaucrat telling us how it is.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In , on 11/29/96 at 05:55 PM, Asgaard said: ::> Rule 2: Don't forward articles from other forums to ::> cypherpunks. We can find it ourselves the same place you did ::This is not universally true. Everyone doesn't have access to a ::functional News server or even to the Web, and some interesting stuff ::could come from closed commercial sites etc. :: for instance, I read a lot of liberal hogwash lists [know thine enemy]. there are lists after lists about lists. sorting out the precisely cut and trimmed info is hard --and there is not time to read a man who is being paid by the word! good summaries with pointers is essential. :: [snip] ...to be able to request longer pieces with very few keystrokes, ::jya-style. :: john provides an extremely valuable service by covering a broad spectrum of sources. since I read others, I am considering using the auto-respond features of procmail to do the same. however, I sure wont cover as much ground as john does! :: The most lazy of us will hardly even light up our browsers ::for a maybe-interesting URL. :: unfortunately, that is too true --even when your mail browser will pass the URL to the browser which is often in the background anyway. ::The problem is off-topic or quasi-on-topic forwards, including EPIC/EFF ::kind of announcements. :: hard to discern sometimes ::And all forwards would benefit from a personal ::comment by the forwarder (at the beginning of the mail, NOT after the 10 ::screens document) where he explains what is interesting cp-wise. ABSOLUTELY! always put your comments and the "pointer" out front --even if you are planning interline comments. - -- without arms they do not resist; without communication they know not what to resist. -attila -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMp9DRb04kQrCC2kFAQH7FAP/U0Xrs8/w61tudGrDmj/XpoLFXCsWdq0l xab+rBby242AVJN0BxULUTVH+F4hblIcJGy52gWTKdwcKHS9lShmhgTFbRpepO+L GLdX+LV6fiBr4SoyD+1+pQBdzmYGyjmXiG3Xp8JoB9q2OBTdJbgoLsCHB6dX97Pe KR3Z7XsowSw= =WUSX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

...

Rule 2: Don't forward articles from other forums to cypherpunks. We can find it ourselves the same place you did

This is not universally true. Everyone doesn't have access to a functional News server or even to the Web, and some interesting stuff could come from closed commercial sites etc.

Yeah, my "rules" are mainly to intimidate newbies into holding still long enough to be properly socialized. Only the Meta-Rule is inviolate. Regards, Bryce, who once receifved a Perry-gram for forwarding an article to cpunks which, unbeknownst to him, had already been so forwarded by others  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2 iQB1AwUBMqK7+kjbHy8sKZitAQEf5AL9EOuni5KdQ8Ug6SY+a0DmiRruoD0ruSam cs35j2So279AT07u0A3fqDeBqUehJfCupyXKU5GekV1IO5M/qpPrxL02/LvSROqS Y3XcVQjD3ZFDOGfLYZysWo2YTaUFMyGF =+E96 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- A million monkeys operating under the pseudonym "Dale Thorn " typed:

Bryce (I think) said words to the effect that "We (subscribers) are doing something with John's computer, etc.", as though the list subscribers are actually operating John's computer, with John's kind permission and over- view

Yes, this is fairly accurate. Of course we (most of us) do not have full Turing machine access to John's computer or to its peripherals, but we do have access to a few simple functions which we use with gusto, including broadcasting, subscribing and unsubscribing, and the other functions of majordomo. Perhaps you are objecting to the idea that our access to John's computer is equivalent to, say, our access to our own computers? I certainly agree with you that it is not the same kind of access.

What I said was: I don't *do* anything with John's computer, I merely mail messages with an address on them, and John can remail or dispose of those messages as he wishes, as long as he doesn't modify them or otherwise use them for any purpose besides what they were intended for.

Yeah, there are some (relatively) subtle issues here like "when is it merely extended causal relation and when is it usage", or "what are the details of this implicit agreement that we have with John" or whatnot, but I'm not sure that those are the issues that you are talking about. To wit:

Bryce's (I think) writing was clearly an example of the kind of double- speak that 1984-ish censors use to justify their actions, and I for one cannot let that kind of B.S. go unchallenged.

What? What sly newspeak did I use and more importantly what great truth am I attempting to conceal? Bryce  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2 iQB1AwUBMqLFH0jbHy8sKZitAQGJuQL+O3nz30rJqJp2rGajj+yeZAFTlu4hISTU /GbSxJLXrBCHGA0SQhVnMpImre3RhJEx1IrwFV+ZeWiubVYtR24s1CEzxDUu5fMb 3XcQUHeUJmG4JpjyFsvpN1Mh6WKKy2Al =Lp9K -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Now I've gotcha! If I, Dale Thorn, an ordinary person (not a commercial mailer), realize somehow what your snail mail address is (an analogy), and I send you a personal letter, are you saying I don't have the "right" to do so? Even if I am aware that you redistribute the letter, as, say, a newspaper such as the L.A. Times would?

Yes this is a fine analogy. You have the right to send whatever letters you want; you don't have the right to demand that any particular thing be _done_ with those letters once they arrive, in the absence of some contract to the contrary.

I'm guessing that what you're saying is something to do with the content or size of such a mailing, yes?

Noooo... What I was saying was that even such a simple service as a mailing list raises some complex issues about agency and responsibility. Did _you_ send MMF to all those people, or did Gilmore? What if Gilmore had a MMF filter in place? What if you evaded it? What if Gilmore only broadcasts signed messages and you signed the MMF? What if you paid to have it broadcast? So what _I'm_ saying is that there are some complex issues about this kind of cyberspatial event, but that the realspace substrate is relatively simple-- it's Gilmore's computer and you have no moral authority to demand that he do or not do any particular thing with it. In the following, you appear to take exception to both of these claims, or at least to the first one-- I'm not sure.

But whatever the case, I'm not "doing something with" your mailbox if I send you a snail mail letter, and I'm not "doing something with" your computer if I send you a posting. It's you who know the result of opening up your computer to the phone lines, and it's up to you to post *your* "rules", and to date, I don't recall any postings from John Gilmore to me or the list regarding such rules, just a few little tin-plated dictators doing it in his name.

I'm still not sure if you are just prone to colorful rhetoric, or if I have really upset you with something I've said. If the latter, I still don't understand what, exactly. Bryce  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2 iQB1AwUBMqL5UEjbHy8sKZitAQEukQMAjS4etLT4pRzoQGrQrNr77m8NwEs4+VYC coIbBNqnVtllRg5eofMUaJvX8zZQKicnwF7ZiT1SxnAlHygOMcnFztI8oJS3HNG5 lpo86+8rtiLjx4jPC4zntGxCrPkECCS3 =UPBq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Mon, 02 Dec 1996 21:34:14 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: Bryce wrote:

whatever letters you want; you don't have the right to demand that any particular thing be _done_ with those letters once they arrive, in the absence of some contract to the contrary.

In the interest of reducing the amount of argument, let's speak more precisely: I think people *do* have the right to demand such a thing, Do you indeed? OK, I hereby demand that you set up a mailing list on your computer for discussion of "censorship" on cypherpunks. Why do I have the right to demand this? although they do *not* necessarily have the right to force such a thing. do not *necessarily*?? Obviously they have no right to use force, since they have no right to make such a demand in the first place. But *if* they had such a right, why on earth would you say they have no right to use force? (You may not agree that they should be able to use physical force themselves, but at least they should have a law or something to apply pressure, right? What kind of right is it if it has nothing at all backing it up?) intelligent cypherpunk would misunderstand such a thing. Do you really believe that myself and other cypherpunks want to "seize" John's equip- ment, morally or otherwise? You are correct about certain issues being Yes. You said so yourself, in this very same post. complex, but one of the big failings of the crowd who supported Gilmore on this action was their failure to understand the point I've made here - that we *do* understand basic property rights, etc. This must be some newspeak interpretation of "understand" of which I was not previously aware... How can I say this better? Myself and a number of other people would really have appreciated it if John had defended himself. The fact of He had no need to defend himself. Any attempt to "defend" himself from people who claim they have a right to demand the use of his computer (if not *necessarily* to back up said demand with force) would probably have been wasted effort anyway. [Yes, I know you think posting to cypherpunks is not "use" of John's computer. Substitute whatever word fits what you think it *is*, if you must.] all these other would-be experts on cyber-rights and morals preaching to the list on behalf of Gilmore, and Gilmore being silent, argues (not proves, just argues) heavily in favor of Dimitri et al. So Tim May's silence in response to Vulis's nonsense, while some others came out in his favour "argues (not proves, just argues) heavily in favor of Dimitri" too? Yeah, sure! Wanna buy a bridge? -- Paul Foley --- PGPmail preferred PGP key ID 0x1CA3386D available from keyservers fingerprint = 4A 76 83 D8 99 BC ED 33 C5 02 81 C9 BF 7A 91 E8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This Fortue Examined By INSPECTOR NO. 2-14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I made note to this list time and time again requesting that people not state the obvious - who owns what hardware and what rights they have to pull the plug or whatever. I seriously doubt that even the least intelligent cypherpunk would misunderstand such a thing. Do you really believe that myself and other cypherpunks want to "seize" John's equip- ment, morally or otherwise? You are correct about certain issues being complex, but one of the big failings of the crowd who supported Gilmore on this action was their failure to understand the point I've made here - that we *do* understand basic property rights, etc.

Ah. Then we are in agreement here. My "Rule" in the House Rules etc. simply stated the obvious fact, for the benefit of those who need it stated, of Gilmore's sole authority over the physical substrate. I vaguely recall some subscribers implying or stating otherwise during the vanish Vulis fracas. It would not at all surprise me if some people disagreed with this simple premise-- they habitually do so with regard to "public" establishments like bars and restaurants, and it isn't much of a stretch to start thinking of cypherpunks as a similarly "public" institution. Bryce  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2 iQB1AwUBMqRVAUjbHy8sKZitAQFRMgL/UTIlPbTu2Z8sIIKLX4wkLWS23WCrVmDr R7PVfovgZgIYoJYPAwtRxrqqQxOJtaS2SAMIItbDtGA1jG75q5GlxeS/wg303NbE f9gX1Ok0vjbfGiyC/lyf58DJfJ6FUDal =kkrb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Bryce wrote:

...

I made note to this list time and time again requesting that people not state the obvious - who owns what hardware and what rights they have to pull the plug or whatever. I seriously doubt that even the least intelligent cypherpunk would misunderstand such a thing. Do you really believe that myself and other cypherpunks want to "seize" John's equip- ment, morally or otherwise? You are correct about certain issues being complex, but one of the big failings of the crowd who supported Gilmore on this action was their failure to understand the point I've made here - that we *do* understand basic property rights, etc.

Ah. Then we are in agreement here. My "Rule" in the House Rules etc. simply stated the obvious fact, for the benefit of those who need it stated, of Gilmore's sole authority over the physical substrate. I vaguely recall some subscribers implying or stating otherwise during the vanish Vulis fracas. It would not at all surprise me if some people disagreed with this simple premise-- they habitually do so with regard to "public" establishments like bars and restaurants, and it isn't much of a stretch to start thinking of cypherpunks as a similarly "public" institution.

*We* are not in agreement. If you insist on arguing that, I'll have to resort to the "Spock" clarification (a la Star Trek), that it's not merely what you say I object to, it's you I object to.

Timothy C. May wrote:

At 3:05 AM +1300 12/4/96, Paul Foley wrote:

...

So Tim May's silence in response to Vulis's nonsense, while some others came out in his favour "argues (not proves, just argues) heavily in favor of Dimitri" too? Yeah, sure! Wanna buy a bridge?

Actually, I've gotten several comments in e-mail to this effect, that if I'm not actively defending myself, maybe I'm guilty. Most were written roughly along the lines of:

[snippo]

As to the ramblings of Dale Thorn about how John Gilmore has an obligation to provide services on his machine, well, I gave up on Thorn a long time ago. (In fact, I seem to recall a Dale Thorn I killfiled years ago on the Extropians list...maybe I'm confusing his name with someone else, but it sure rings a bell.)

Since I wasn't on the Internet before, the answer is no. As to Dale insisting on Gilmore providing services, the answer to that is clear if you actually read my posts, which you apparently claim to have done, yet claim not to have done since you "gave up" a long time ago. Which is it, Tim? Tim May writes on certain topics a la "Crypto Anarchy and Virtual Communities" with a passion that is compelling, if not entirely convincing, yet this "leader of cypherpunks" is pitifully out of his element dealing with a truly rational person such as myself, since in Tim's universe, emotion seems to be the more desirable substitute. BTW, I never suggested guilt via not answering up to the list on any topic. I said it would have been clearer to the list subscribers if John had explained things himself instead of having a plethora of defenses coming from hacks like yourself, who don't represent John. If you, Sandy, and the other offenders *really* want to keep the noise down, then next time ask John directly for a reply, and if none is forthcoming, say to the list *once*, "John will not answer up", etc., and let the subscribers draw their own conclusions from the silence, instead of from your inane "defenses".

Bryce writes:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

...

...

Rule 2: Don't forward articles from other forums to cypherpunks. We can find it ourselves the same place you did

This is not universally true. Everyone doesn't have access to a functional News server or even to the Web, and some interesting stuff could come from closed commercial sites etc.

Yeah, my "rules" are mainly to intimidate newbies into holding still long enough to be properly socialized. Only the Meta-Rule is inviolate.

Thank you, Bryce, for an excellent quote. Indeed "cypher punks" control freaks are into indimidation and power games. No wonder there's so much intersection between the "cypher punks" and the Usenet news.* Cabal! "Cypher punks" have degenerated into an inbred cybermob whose goal in life is to "enforce" the "rules" that apply to "newbies" (more Cabal-speak) but not to the "in-crowd". Paul Bradley, the vitriolic flamer, is a good example of a "cypher punk". Paul doesn't know much about cryptography, but he's been harrassing Don Wood because Don Wood dared propose a cryprosystem. I haven't examined Don's proposal and don't know how good it is. Paul apparently FTP's Don's files but lacked the technical knowledge to understand the proposal. Paul first posted nonsensical attacks on Don's proposal (discussing a brute-force attack on one-time pad). When several people, including myself, pointed out that Paul was writing nonsense, Paul claimed that he mistyped "one-time pad" for "stream cypher". Although it's an entirely different animal, Paul's writings were still nonsense, even if one substituted "stream cypher" for "one-time pad". After being exposed as ignoramus, Paul abandoned attempts at technical discussion and turned to baiting Don with ad hominem attacks, calling him "master of bullshit", and putting "(spit)" after his name. Don reacted to Paul's provocation exactly once and rather mildly - calling Paul "fatbrain" in reference to his e-mail host. That was the last we heard from Don. Has the content-based censor John Gilmore pulled Don's plug as punishment for "inappropriate content"? Inquiring minds want to know. For the logorrhetics' reading pleasure, I reproduce another quote from Paul: ]From: paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk ]To: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" ]Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 15:18:16 +0000 ]Subject: Re: Workers Paradise. /Political rant. ]Message-Id: <843149202.18173.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> ] ]> Yeah!!! And I'll bounce each mailbomb to everyone who tries it. Won't ]> that be fun. Too ba your netcom account won't last long. ] ]`Fraid not loser, I`ll just mailbomb your ass so bad you won`t know ]what hit you, and my account is on demon, who can handle my incoming ]mail (about 300 a day) without a problem, go ahead punk, make my ]day.. <sig> (Paul tried mailbombing me and was warned that his mailbombs will be bounced back to him.) --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM writes:

Bryce writes:

...

Yeah, my "rules" are mainly to intimidate newbies into holding still long enough to be properly socialized. Only the Meta-Rule is inviolate.

"Cypher punks" have degenerated into an inbred cybermob whose goal in life is to "enforce" the "rules" that apply to "newbies" (more Cabal-speak) but not to the "in-crowd".

"Double standards" is the term that springs to mind ...