Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
On Thu, 14 Nov 1996, Sean Roach wrote:
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 19:46:08 -0500 From: Sean Roach <roach_s@alph.swosu.edu> To: aga <aga@dhp.com>, cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Mark M. wrote:
Mark - -- finger -l for PGP key PGP encrypted mail prefered.
To which, at 08:42 AM 11/14/96 -0500, aga wrote:
Why? Are you a criminal? What are you hiding behind your PGP?
Okay, I'll bite. Where is it said that a person who wants h[is,er] privacy is a criminal? Charlie McCarthy might have said that.
It just "looks" that way on the net. I do live-fucking, newsgroup flooding, mailbombing, vote-tampering and defamation all legally, and OPENLY on the InterNet. The more you PGP, the worse you look. Nobody reads your e-mail, so stop being so paranoid. -aga
So, you send all of your snail mail on post cards do you? No sealed envelopes at all? Afterall you have nothing to hide, right? Of course not, privacy isn't about being a criminal, its about being private. It is not akin to anonymity, *perhaps* those who work anonymously have `something to hide' (still doesn't necessarily make them a criminal, however), I'll let someone else field that as I feel that anonymity is rarely a good thing. Privacy, on the other hand, simply means that not everything I do is any of your business and I would just as soon you not be tempted to even bother trying to find out. Of course, if all of your personal mail (including financial statements etc) is sent on post cards, then (while I think you would be crazy) I will at least admit you are consistent. Else, I think you need to look hard at the logic you are using. cheers On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, aga wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 1996, Sean Roach wrote:
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 19:46:08 -0500 From: Sean Roach <roach_s@alph.swosu.edu> To: aga <aga@dhp.com>, cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Mark M. wrote:
Mark - -- finger -l for PGP key PGP encrypted mail prefered.
To which, at 08:42 AM 11/14/96 -0500, aga wrote:
Why? Are you a criminal? What are you hiding behind your PGP?
Okay, I'll bite. Where is it said that a person who wants h[is,er] privacy is a criminal? Charlie McCarthy might have said that.
It just "looks" that way on the net. I do live-fucking, newsgroup flooding, mailbombing, vote-tampering and defamation all legally, and OPENLY on the InterNet.
The more you PGP, the worse you look. Nobody reads your e-mail, so stop being so paranoid.
-aga
On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Dave Kinchlea wrote:
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 15:18:12 -0800 (PST) From: Dave Kinchlea <security@kinch.ark.com> To: aga <aga@dhp.com> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
So, you send all of your snail mail on post cards do you? No sealed envelopes at all? Afterall you have nothing to hide, right?
Irrelevant analogy; snail.mail and e-mail. The former is in physical form, and the latter usually never is.
Of course not, privacy isn't about being a criminal, its about being private. It is not akin to anonymity, *perhaps* those who work anonymously have `something to hide' (still doesn't necessarily make them a criminal, however),
Anonymity on the InterNet is a Constitutional right, and is the sole supporter of freedom of speech.
I'll let someone else field that as I feel that anonymity is rarely a good thing.
I disagree, anonymity is a good thing that will never be questioned by anybody, but your PGP will, and it is really not safe anyway.
Privacy, on the other hand, simply means that not everything I do is any of your business and I would just as soon you not be tempted to even bother trying to find out.
If you do not send it to me by e-mail, I will never see it. Why are you so paranoid that someone is reading your e-mail? I never do anything criminal, so I could give a shit less if everybody reads all of my fucking mail.
Of course, if all of your personal mail (including financial statements etc) is sent on post cards, then (while I think you would be crazy) I will at least admit you are consistent. Else, I think you need to look hard at the logic you are using.
Again, inconsistant analogy. This is nothing but photons in it's ultimate form, and it will never see paper. Anything that _you_ print is not attributable to me, and any e-mail printed by you would never be acceptable as a court exhibit. stop getting cyberspace mixed up with print. why do you put that cypherpunks address in the header? just where did this e-mail originate from? Steve, are you on that cypherpunks list? -aga
On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, aga wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Dave Kinchlea wrote:
So, you send all of your snail mail on post cards do you? No sealed envelopes at all? Afterall you have nothing to hide, right?
Irrelevant analogy; snail.mail and e-mail. The former is in physical form, and the latter usually never is.
No kidding, thanks for that information. Perhaps you can explain how it is relevant?
Of course not, privacy isn't about being a criminal, its about being private. It is not akin to anonymity, *perhaps* those who work anonymously have `something to hide' (still doesn't necessarily make them a criminal, however),
Anonymity on the InterNet is a Constitutional right, and is the sole supporter of freedom of speech.
Another irrelevant and completely inaccurate point. I utilize free speech everyday yet I manage to do it without anonymity.
I'll let someone else field that as I feel that anonymity is rarely a good thing.
I disagree, anonymity is a good thing that will never be questioned by anybody, but your PGP will, and it is really not safe anyway.
ha ha ha, not by anybody huh. What world do you live in? I know plenty of people who feel that if you must say something anonymously `you must be hiding something, probably a criminal!'. I don't subscribe to this, I feel that most people who post anonymously are just chicken-shits, but that too is besides the point. It *is* questioned by many people. And as to PGP not being safe, perhaps you could expand a bit on this, it hasn't hurt me or anyone I know, seems pretty safe to me. To address what I assume your point was, it acts as a prefectly good sealed envelope (and I believe quite a bit more), in the context of my original reply, this is quite `safe'.
Privacy, on the other hand, simply means that not everything I do is any of your business and I would just as soon you not be tempted to even bother trying to find out.
If you do not send it to me by e-mail, I will never see it.
Nor will you see my post-card that I send to my mom, how does that change the nature of a post-card OR email?
Why are you so paranoid that someone is reading your e-mail?
Paranoid? No, but why make it easy for anyone to do so?
I never do anything criminal, so I could give a shit less if everybody reads all of my fucking mail.
so how is it different, besides being electronic, from snail mail? I repeat, why don't you use post-cards exclusively for mail? Oh yes, that is `print', a totally different thing, geesh.
Of course, if all of your personal mail (including financial statements etc) is sent on post cards, then (while I think you would be crazy) I will at least admit you are consistent. Else, I think you need to look hard at the logic you are using.
Again, inconsistant analogy. This is nothing but photons in it's ultimate form, and it will never see paper. Anything that _you_ print is not attributable to me, and any e-mail printed by you would never be acceptable as a court exhibit.
You appear to be confused, I look at what I wrote and I see nothing at all that mentions courts. I am talking about personal privacy and the analogy is not at all inconsistent. (and paper mail is nothing but atoms in it's ultimate form, so what?)
stop getting cyberspace mixed up with print.
Why do you think there is something magical about `cyberspace'? Privacy is privacy, period. Communication is communication, period. There is no reason to differentiate private communication via print and private communication via cyberspace. Both are desirable for exactly the same reasons.
why do you put that cypherpunks address in the header? just where did this e-mail originate from?
Thats how it landed on my plate, thats where I send it back, seems reasonable to me. cheers, kinch
Dave Kinchlea <security@kinch.ark.com> writes:
Irrelevant analogy; snail.mail and e-mail. The former is in physical form, and the latter usually never is.
No kidding, thanks for that information. Perhaps you can explain how it is relevant?
Very simple: snail mail is much more suitable to be used as evidence in court than e-mail.
Of course not, privacy isn't about being a criminal, its about being private. It is not akin to anonymity, *perhaps* those who work anonymously have `something to hide' (still doesn't necessarily make them a criminal, however),
Anonymity on the InterNet is a Constitutional right, and is the sole supporter of freedom of speech.
Another irrelevant and completely inaccurate point. I utilize free speech everyday yet I manage to do it without anonymity.
It's ironic that I read Dave's e-mail on John Gilmore's private cypherpunks mailing list, which is known to be censored by John. If you're subscribed to this mailing list, then you're definitely not utilizing free speech.
I disagree, anonymity is a good thing that will never be questioned by anybody, but your PGP will, and it is really not safe anyway.
ha ha ha, not by anybody huh. What world do you live in? I know plenty of people who feel that if you must say something anonymously `you must be hiding something, probably a criminal!'. I don't subscribe to this, I feel that most people who post anonymously are just chicken-shits, but that too is besides the point. It *is* questioned by many people.
It's important to remember that petty censors like Bruce Bough oppose anonymity - they want whoever says something "politically incorrect" to be punished for their speech. This is in line with the kind of censorship John Gilmore practices on the cypherpunks mailing list.
And as to PGP not being safe, perhaps you could expand a bit on this, it hasn't hurt me or anyone I know, seems pretty safe to me. To address what I assume your point was, it acts as a prefectly good sealed envelope (and I believe quite a bit more), in the context of my original reply, this is quite `safe'.
I don't know that PGP is safe. That's I don't use it. (The exception are my NoCeMbots which use PGP to sign their notices, because properly implemented NoCeM clients check digital signatures.)
Why are you so paranoid that someone is reading your e-mail?
Paranoid? No, but why make it easy for anyone to do so?
I think the censors' agenda is the opposite: they *don't* want anybody to be able to read the materials they want to suppress. That why they're not satisfied by using procmail to filter out the unwanted traffic from their own mailboxes, but want to impose their censorship on any potential reader. Read the very revealing complaint from the lying shyster Jim Ray for example.
I never do anything criminal, so I could give a shit less if everybody reads all of my fucking mail.
so how is it different, besides being electronic, from snail mail? I repeat, why don't you use post-cards exclusively for mail? Oh yes, that is `print', a totally different thing, geesh.
One can fit more info in an envelope than on a postcard. I knew people who do use postcards whenever they can to save on postage.
Of course, if all of your personal mail (including financial statements etc) is sent on post cards, then (while I think you would be crazy) I will at least admit you are consistent. Else, I think you need to look hard at the logic you are using.
Again, inconsistant analogy. This is nothing but photons in it's ultimate form, and it will never see paper. Anything that _you_ print is not attributable to me, and any e-mail printed by you would never be acceptable as a court exhibit.
You appear to be confused, I look at what I wrote and I see nothing at all that mentions courts. I am talking about personal privacy and the analogy is not at all inconsistent. (and paper mail is nothing but atoms in it's ultimate form, so what?)
Now, if a piece of e-mail were digitally signed, then it *might* be more admissible in court.
stop getting cyberspace mixed up with print.
Why do you think there is something magical about `cyberspace'? Privacy is privacy, period. Communication is communication, period. There is no reason to differentiate private communication via print and private communication via cyberspace. Both are desirable for exactly the same reasons.
John Gilmore has no credibility. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
I told myself that I wouldn't do this but .... On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
Dave Kinchlea <security@kinch.ark.com> writes:
Irrelevant analogy; snail.mail and e-mail. The former is in physical form, and the latter usually never is.
No kidding, thanks for that information. Perhaps you can explain how it is relevant?
Very simple: snail mail is much more suitable to be used as evidence in court than e-mail.
But I wasn't talking about evidence in court, ALL I was talking about was personal privacy in a (wasted) reply to aga's assertion that only criminals would want to use PGP for email. I made the simple observation that I think it is reasonable for me to not want others to read personal (e)mail, period. Nothing about courts, law, free speech or anything else. That was aga's straw-man, not mine. [...]
Another irrelevant and completely inaccurate point. I utilize free speech everyday yet I manage to do it without anonymity.
It's ironic that I read Dave's e-mail on John Gilmore's private cypherpunks mailing list, which is known to be censored by John. If you're subscribed to this mailing list, then you're definitely not utilizing free speech.
On the contrary, nothing and nobody has stopped me (or you apparently) from speaking openly and freely. You are just being silly. I didn't even say I opposed anonymity, I just find it distasteful. [...]
I don't know that PGP is safe. That's I don't use it. (The exception are my NoCeMbots which use PGP to sign their notices, because properly implemented NoCeM clients check digital signatures.)
Well, in case you missed it, I was simply having fun with the word `safe'. As I do not do things illegal and there is nothing in my encrypted or non-encrypted mail that would get me into trouble, it is of course perfectly `safe' even if the encryption were broken. Much more than adequate for the `envelope' that I want it for.
Why are you so paranoid that someone is reading your e-mail?
Paranoid? No, but why make it easy for anyone to do so?
I think the censors' agenda is the opposite: they *don't* want anybody to be
Blah blah blah, this is your argument not mine. I won't help you here. cheers, kinch
On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, Dave Kinchlea wrote:
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 08:08:39 -0800 (PST) From: Dave Kinchlea <security@kinch.ark.com> Reply-To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org To: aga <aga@dhp.com> Cc: InterNet Freedom Council <ifc@pgh.org>, freedom-knights@jetcafe.org, cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, aga wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Dave Kinchlea wrote:
So, you send all of your snail mail on post cards do you? No sealed envelopes at all? Afterall you have nothing to hide, right?
Irrelevant analogy; snail.mail and e-mail. The former is in physical form, and the latter usually never is.
No kidding, thanks for that information. Perhaps you can explain how it is relevant?
it is not -- I said irrelevant.
Of course not, privacy isn't about being a criminal, its about being private. It is not akin to anonymity, *perhaps* those who work anonymously have `something to hide' (still doesn't necessarily make them a criminal, however),
Anonymity on the InterNet is a Constitutional right, and is the sole supporter of freedom of speech.
Another irrelevant and completely inaccurate point. I utilize free speech everyday yet I manage to do it without anonymity.
so? that is you. but if a motherfucker wants to be anonymous, he must be allowed; there is no exception to the rule.
I'll let someone else field that as I feel that anonymity is rarely a good thing.
I disagree, anonymity is a good thing that will never be questioned by anybody, but your PGP will, and it is really not safe anyway.
ha ha ha, not by anybody huh. What world do you live in? I know plenty of people who feel that if you must say something anonymously `you must be hiding something, probably a criminal!'. I don't subscribe to this, I feel that most people who post anonymously are just chicken-shits, but that too is besides the point. It *is* questioned by many people.
fuck them.
And as to PGP not being safe, perhaps you could expand a bit on this, it hasn't hurt me or anyone I know, seems pretty safe to me. To address what I assume your point was, it acts as a prefectly good sealed envelope (and I believe quite a bit more), in the context of my original reply, this is quite `safe'.
never ever rely on something being encoded and not able to be unencoded, that is not possible. whatever man can do, man can undue, and that is a law of nature that has no exception.
Privacy, on the other hand, simply means that not everything I do is any of your business and I would just as soon you not be tempted to even bother trying to find out.
If you do not send it to me by e-mail, I will never see it.
Nor will you see my post-card that I send to my mom, how does that change the nature of a post-card OR email?
Why are you so paranoid that someone is reading your e-mail?
Paranoid? No, but why make it easy for anyone to do so?
I never do anything criminal, so I could give a shit less if everybody reads all of my fucking mail.
so how is it different, besides being electronic, from snail mail? I repeat, why don't you use post-cards exclusively for mail? Oh yes, that is `print', a totally different thing, geesh.
no, you just need envelopes for multiple pages.
Of course, if all of your personal mail (including financial statements etc) is sent on post cards, then (while I think you would be crazy) I will at least admit you are consistent. Else, I think you need to look hard at the logic you are using.
Again, inconsistant analogy. This is nothing but photons in it's ultimate form, and it will never see paper. Anything that _you_ print is not attributable to me, and any e-mail printed by you would never be acceptable as a court exhibit.
You appear to be confused, I look at what I wrote and I see nothing at all that mentions courts. I am talking about personal privacy and the analogy is not at all inconsistent. (and paper mail is nothing but atoms in it's ultimate form, so what?)
You have it. Just never print anything.
stop getting cyberspace mixed up with print.
Why do you think there is something magical about `cyberspace'? Privacy is privacy, period. Communication is communication, period. There is no reason to differentiate private communication via print and private communication via cyberspace. Both are desirable for exactly the same reasons.
why do you put that cypherpunks address in the header? just where did this e-mail originate from?
Thats how it landed on my plate, thats where I send it back, seems reasonable to me.
Yeah, but some motherfucker is sending this shit to that list I think. What a fucking joke that is.
cheers, kinch
cheers, -aga
aga <aga@dhp.com> writes:
Of course not, privacy isn't about being a criminal, its about being private. It is not akin to anonymity, *perhaps* those who work anonymously have `something to hide' (still doesn't necessarily make them a criminal, however),
Anonymity on the InterNet is a Constitutional right, and is the sole supporter of freedom of speech.
Significantly, Bruce Bough and other EFF/John Gilmore supporters are against total anonymity just like they're against free speech. They wants to be able to track down and silence anyone who uses the anonymous remailers to say something "homophobic" or otherwise politically incorrect - a kind of "identify escrow".
Privacy, on the other hand, simply means that not everything I do is any of your business and I would just as soon you not be tempted to even bother trying to find out.
If you do not send it to me by e-mail, I will never see it. Why are you so paranoid that someone is reading your e-mail? I never do anything criminal, so I could give a shit less if everybody reads all of my fucking mail.
I again remind you the lying shyster Jim Ray who tries to "guest" who might be behind various anonymous postings and complains to the suspects' postmasters just in case. What a lying piece of shit. Does anyone know the snail address for Judge Kozinski? Jim Ray's been boasting so much about his correspondense with the good judge, that we must warn him about Jim's lies and hypocricy (notably, his *true* position on anonymity). --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
participants (3)
-
aga -
Dave Kinchlea -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com