Detweiler blocking
I must admit to a certain amount of amazement to the almost universal consensus I have seen in this forum regarding censoring Detweiler's (or whomever's) Usenet postings. I believe in the remailer concept and I believe in fighting the authoritarian traceability standard that the Internet is designed around. As Xenon and others have mentioned, there are numerous ways for anyone to get around any kind of source-level filtering you might care to implement, and thus as remailer operators heading down this path, you will be put in the position of the proverbial dutch boy with a finger in the dike. The type of privacy that most of us as cypherpunks think is important and are trying to provide will necessarily leave us open to attacks such as Detweiler's. But I think privacy is more important than one more off-topic post in a random newsgroup. And if someone receives mail they don't like or don't appreciate--delete it! This medium of electronic communication is not nearly as dangerous as the current postal system, which allows you to send real mailbombs--and the postal system does NOT require return addresses. Who are these uptight schmucks writing to root and postmaster about Detweiler posts? Why on earth have they been allowed to get away with it! This is ridiculous. I think this is the battle that we must fight. The digital convergence is happening now, and unfortunately with the current authoritarian Internet model, Clipper/Capstone/Tesserae and all that nonsense--things arent't looking good for our side. Therefore, I think even more we have to stand on principle to fight this thing. (and yes, I fully intend to have my remailer running soon--I'm not just talking). Someone could send me mail now containing kiddy porn (most likely a postal inspector--they seem to be the only markey for the stuff) with no return address--should I write to the root@whitehouse.org as the ultimate arbiter since the postal service has delivered me this mail? If someone delivers mail through my remailer (which will ONLY support PGP encrypted mail) how am I responsible? Benjamin ---------------------------------------------------------------------- analyst@netcom.com mail pgp-public-keys@io.com for PGP key
Benjamin McLemore says:
I must admit to a certain amount of amazement to the almost universal consensus I have seen in this forum regarding censoring Detweiler's (or whomever's) Usenet postings.
No one has proposed censoring his Usenet postings. What people have proposed is that they deny him the use of the remailers that they set up on their hardware. This is very different. Its the difference between saying "Detweiler can't live" and "Detweiler can't live IN MY LIVING ROOM". Its the difference between saying "I advocate the right of people to discuss any topic they want" and saying "I adovacate the right of people to discuss any topic they want IN MY BEDROOM AT FOUR AM WHILE I'M TRYING TO SLEEP." I am constantly suprised that this simple distinction is so hard for people to understand. I advocate, for instance, that Nazis should have free speech, but I would never hand them money to buy printing presses, nor would I patronize newsstands that carry their publications. Presumably this is "censorship" too. I see nothing wrong with remailer operators taking steps to prevent Detweiler from using their equipment against their will. This is not censorship. Mr. Detweiler is still free to use Usenet any way he sees fit. It is simply the act of saying "Mr. Detweiler can't use MY REMAILER any way he sees fit." Perry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Wed, 16 Feb 1994, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
I see nothing wrong with remailer operators taking steps to prevent Detweiler from using their equipment against their will. This is not censorship. Mr. Detweiler is still free to use Usenet any way he sees fit. It is simply the act of saying "Mr. Detweiler can't use MY REMAILER any way he sees fit."
In a society where anonymity were commonly available, I would agree withyou, but sadly we do not live in such a society. As cypherpunks we are trying to rectify this, to make anonymity available for _all_, pricks like Detweiler included. I think that it sets a bad precedent to boot him off of our private remailers while our remailers are still all that's out there. When public remailing is a reality, we can rightly do as we see fit with our private remailers without risking jeopardizing the future of anonymity rights on the net as a whole. Understand of course, that I am not saying that you have no right to boot Detweiler...I am merely pointing out that I think it would set a dangerous precedent, and would in the long run be detrimental to all we are working for. Jim Wise wisej@acf4.nyu.edu jaw7254@acfcluster.nyu.edu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLWK7WDS8O1DgkhNpAQHbSQP+KHhrjXYGH6+45dJ/J7YvGVohLMDPs8Jk oHE9dUsN3Dz5kNcnU93RkEiqI25QuaE/Yp8aQJnCEFO3xatrp2O8AzmowA458adg I+lzRHARl2bVvFcVnMjB3iFDYVs7q37Qb2y6dTokPrnN4YxarqXUUabfgKsD9vrt XhsDmxXzit4= =XeRd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
wisej says:
In a society where anonymity were commonly available, I would agree with you, but sadly we do not live in such a society. As cypherpunks we are trying to rectify this, to make anonymity available for _all_, pricks like Detweiler included.
My goal is not to make anonymity available for all. My goal is to keep it LEGAL for all. Mr. Detweiler and the rest can pay for their anonymity on their own dime -- I give my services to people I like and people who pay me, not to anyone and everyone. Just because I feel the American Nazi Party should be legal does not give me the personal urge to give them money. Detweiler is indeed a prick. As such, I feel no obligation to make his life easy. I see nothing wrong with individuals deciding who they wish to give service to and who they don't. Just because I feel something should be legal does not mean I wish to supply it. I think it should be legal for Detweiler to be anonymous if he wishes. I see no obligation for anyone who dislikes him to supply him with the mechanisms to exercise his rights, however.
I am merely pointing out that I think it would set a dangerous precedent, and would in the long run be detrimental to all we are working for.
I think the opposite. I believe that suicidally deciding to make his life easy regardless of how much of a pain in the buttocks he is is the bad precedent -- it gives people the wrong idea about what these services are about. Julf kicked him off -- but to this day refuses to confirm if it was really Detweiler using an12070. That is the sort of ethical precedent I like -- Julf kept his word about anonymity but refused to allow his dime to be used to fund further abuse. Its bad precedent for people to feel muzzy headed about the distinction between wanting something legal and wanting to supply it. Perry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Wed, 16 Feb 1994, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
My goal is not to make anonymity available for all. My goal is to keep it LEGAL for all. Mr. Detweiler and the rest can pay for their anonymity on their own dime -- I give my services to people I like and
But the best way to keep it legal is to keep it widely available, no questions asked...If each person is providing their own brand of anonymity, it sort of destroys the point, doesn't it? After all, you just look to see whose remailing style is being used. Jim Wise wisej@acf4.nyu.edu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLWMNKTS8O1DgkhNpAQHJXgQAxfwCMnwZOWJlVEInkiLAPsO9IrsiluwL HLW+jLpBhNNqpneLdNrQIVgc/ZxNSwCda8fbcFR/gOHkY2oT/Ce8convXe8AxqPv ZyGu+x0zzhytyoq+y61fXrxbgzt5tuO7DP+1zkEWYj8R/IQhUhyOkulg3rbrHU68 frG64Fw2apU= =URGR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
wisej says:
My goal is not to make anonymity available for all. My goal is to keep it LEGAL for all. Mr. Detweiler and the rest can pay for their anonymity on their own dime -- I give my services to people I like and
But the best way to keep it legal is to keep it widely available, no questions asked.
I see no reason to believe that the one follows from the other, but even assuming that you were right, barring Detweiler does not substantially reduce the set of people to whom services are available. .pm
While I personally have no bitch with LD's posts (I just delete 99% of them) it would seem that a service provider, like a restaurant, can say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" It's a free country - (or at least buyable) - the remailer operators should have a right to deny service to anyone they care to. If the person they deny service to doesn't like it, they can use a different remailer. Or start their own remailer.
Benjamin McLemore says:
I must admit to a certain amount of amazement to the almost universal consensus I have seen in this forum regarding censoring Detweiler's (or whomever's) Usenet postings.
No one has proposed censoring his Usenet postings. What people have proposed is that they deny him the use of the remailers that they set up on their hardware. This is very different.
[deleted]
I see nothing wrong with remailer operators taking steps to prevent Detweiler from using their equipment against their will. This is not censorship. Mr. Detweiler is still free to use Usenet any way he sees fit. It is simply the act of saying "Mr. Detweiler can't use MY REMAILER any way he sees fit." Perry
Sorry for the typo, of course I meant censoring Detweiler's Usenet postings vis a vis the remailer network. I don't even want to know who is sending messages through my remailer and they beter be encrypted so that I can't know--this is the essence of the privacy that I think remailers should provide and it is how I think we have to fight the current authoritarian model. Yes, Detweiler wants the remailer's shut down and some type og Big Brother/retina scanning/verification approach so that he can be sure we're not al the same person. As such, he is an enemy of what we stand for. And yet, he can use the technologies we are developing just as well--so can the rest of the poeple who are against our agenda and there is no way we could distribute filter lists fast enough to keep them all out (especially with port 25). My point is--what harm have Detweiler's posts through the remailer's done? I do not accept that they were really even harm--anybody reading unmoderated Usenet newsgroups is wading through far more drivel on a daily basis then the Perversion can manage to generate. It is challenging this notion that they were harmful (and I am not doubting that some net.czars--although hopefully not Netcom--would find them so) that I am trying to do. WE must have privacy for everyone--even Detweiler. I agree with Perry that Detweiler's right to sin ends when he uses my property, but I only plan to use (and soon run) remailers where the text is encrypted anyway. I certainly do not plan to filter messages based on a content I can't even read. Thus, by design I wouldn't be able to filter him or any other fools he might motivate to his irrational cause. As to kiddie porn, what is my legal liability if all that passes through my system is PGP-encrypted bits. Someone else will have to open the envelope (I assume that the postal inspectors aren't arresting all the postal workers in the chain of delivery of the crap they are sending to BBS operators...)--I don't plan to be able to. Benjamin -- analyst@netcom.com
On Wed, 16 Feb 1994, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
I see nothing wrong with remailer operators taking steps to prevent Detweiler from using their equipment against their will. This is not censorship. Mr. Detweiler is still free to use Usenet any way he sees fit. It is simply the act of saying "Mr. Detweiler can't use MY REMAILER any way he sees fit."
Actually, `their' is a closer word for it than `Mr' is. =o _ . _ ___ _ . _ ===-|)/\\/|V|/\/\ (_)/_\|_|\_/(_)/_\|_| Stop by for an excursion into the-=== ===-|)||| | |\/\/ mud.crl.com 8888 (_) Virtual Bay Area! -===
participants (5)
-
analyst＠netcom.com -
jdwilson＠gold.chem.hawaii.edu -
Jeremy Cooper -
Perry E. Metzger -
wisej