On Sat, 24 Dec 1994 blancw@pylon.com wrote:

Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 01:59:07 -0800 From: blancw@pylon.com To: cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files

Responding to msg by Black Unicorn, who is having a bad hair day (and so close to Christmas!):

I nominate this for understatement of the season.

"Had I encrypted with Norton encrypt? I would have been deserving of whatever attack ensued."

Are the cypherpunks all of one mind regarding ideals and morality? Had I inquired of the list how I could break into my dearest one's privacy, I would have been deserving of whatever commentary ensued regarding the disgusting implications of that act.

In my view, this is absolutely so unless it is attached to censorship guised as moral correction. As I said, a proper response should have been the technical answer, followed by sage advice about the legality, and potential moral implications of use of the information as was proposed.

"Disgusting. Get off this list, you belong on alt.codependency.recovery, or alt.bleeding.liberal."

(Say - isn't this why Tim left for a bit? Oh, well.)

It is, and for this I owe the individual and the entire list an apology. Coupling an argument for censorship with some kind of moral judgement reacted so fouly with my concept of information freedom that I became rather enraged. Not that this excuses my behavior of course. Lesson learned, wait 20 minutes after composing a message before sending the final draft.

"I may disagree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to express your [sanctimonious] opinion." (or something like that).

How does censorship align with this historic phrase? Censorship based on opinion of what is and is not appropiate use?

.. Blanc

-uni- (Dark) 073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est 6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa - wichtig!