Re: Hate speech and censorship
I can warmly recommend Cyberpass. Cyberpass does not censor political speech. They provide anonymous accounts to a considerable low price. The connection is telnet with a UNIX shell and SSH support. Cyberpass is a division of Infonex InterNet Services. They have a policy "Go and get a court order" which is very unusual. They already host the OSTARA domain www.ostara.org containing stupid nazi propaganda. Others I could mention are Concentric Network Corporation and Panix - Public Network Corporation and Webcom. http://www.cyberpass.net http://www.cris.com http://www.concentric.net http://www.webcom.com. I am sure there are others who do not censor. But these are those I trust most. Most ISPs are more concerned about pornography than hate speech.
nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) writes:
I can warmly recommend Cyberpass. Cyberpass does not censor political speech. They provide anonymous accounts to a considerable low price. The connection is telnet with a UNIX shell and SSH support. Cyberpass is a division of Infonex InterNet Services. They have a policy "Go and get a court order" which is very unusual. They already host the OSTARA domain www.ostara.org containing stupid nazi propaganda. Others I could mention are Concentric Network Corporation and Panix - Public Network Corporation and Webcom. http://www.cyberpass.net http://www.cris.com http://www.concentric.net http://www.webcom.com. I am sure there are others who do not censor. But these are those I trust most. Most ISPs are more concerned about pornography than hate speech.
Panix is extremely censorous. I know of at least 3 cases where they pulled plugs on their users because they didn't like the contents of their speech. (Many people here probably remember Fred Cherry - Panix pulled his plug for "homophobia".) chris.com pulled the plug on TRRJC3 (Igor's pal) because of content. I also wouldn't trust Lance Cottrell. He's selling privacy for the $$, not for the ideology; he'll bend over the moment he thinks there's more $$ in bending over, which is usually the case. Remember how Sameer Parekh's C2Net used to try to peddle a "privacy ISP" because he failed miserable and diversified into peddiling shitty software and making idiotic legal threats? He happily pulled plugs bases on content, while at the same time stating in court papers that he doesn't censor content. What a pathological liar. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
Panix is extremely censorous. I know of at least 3 cases where they pulled plugs on their users because they didn't like the contents of their speech.
(Many people here probably remember Fred Cherry - Panix pulled his plug for "homophobia".) chris.com pulled the plug on TRRJC3 (Igor's pal) because of content. I wish you could be a little more specific. Harrashing email and excessive cross-posting in violation of each UseNet group charter is not censorship. If someone sends a gay an email saying "I will kill you. Look out for the next gay pride parade" that's is legitimate ground for action.
I also wouldn't trust Lance Cottrell. He's selling privacy for the $$, not for the ideology; he'll bend over the moment he thinks there's more $$ in bending over, which is usually the case. What is wrong selling privacy for money? Do you have any prof that Lance Cottrell would "bending over" his principles in favour of money.
Remember how Sameer Parekh's C2Net used to try to peddle a "privacy ISP" because he failed miserable and diversified into peddiling shitty software and making idiotic legal threats? He happily pulled plugs bases on content, while at the same time stating in court papers that he doesn't censor content. What a pathological liar. I suppose you can back up your claim with documentation. What court document are you referring as evidence that Sameer Parekh is a pathological liar?
nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) writes:
On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
Panix is extremely censorous. I know of at least 3 cases where they pulled plugs on their users because they didn't like the contents of their speech.
(Many people here probably remember Fred Cherry - Panix pulled his plug for "homophobia".) chris.com pulled the plug on TRRJC3 (Igor's pal) because of content. I wish you could be a little more specific. Harrashing email and excessive cross-posting in violation of each UseNet group charter is not censorship. If someone sends a gay an email saying "I will kill you. Look out for the next gay pride parade" that's is legitimate ground for action.
Panix pulled Fred Cherry's plug because of his Usenet articles criticizing homosexuals as child molestors and fascist censors. I am not aware of Fred Cherry ever sending anyone e-mail resembling the "quote" fabricated the anonymous homosexual. No wonder John Gilmore is a cocksucker. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) writes:
On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
I also wouldn't trust Lance Cottrell. He's selling privacy for the $$, not for the ideology; he'll bend over the moment he thinks there's more $$ in bending over, which is usually the case.
What is wrong selling privacy for money? Do you have any prof that Lance Cottrell would "bending over" his principles in favour of money.
If "prof" is supposed to be "proof" then the answer is yes. Lance Cottrell has spoken many times in favor of content censorship. Witness, for example, his harrassment of HipCrime. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) writes:
Remember how Sameer Parekh's C2Net used to try to peddle a "privacy ISP" because he failed miserable and diversified into peddiling shitty software and making idiotic legal threats? He happily pulled plugs bases on content, while at the same time stating in court papers that he doesn't censor conte What a pathological liar. I suppose you can back up your claim with documentation. What court document are you referring as evidence that Sameer Parekh is a pathological liar?
I refer, inter alia, to the smelly Arab pulling the plug on netscum@c2.net back when c2 peddling "privacy". The following is from Parekh's own net.scum page: ]Sameer Parekh, sameer@c2.net, pulled the plug on the Net.Scum pages because ]he did not like their content. At about the same time Sameer was sued by the ]Software Publishers Association because his computer was being used by ]his friends to distribute pirated software. Sameer claimed in court papers ]that he exercises no control over his users' contents. He clearly lied: ] ]>From sameer Thu Oct 24 10: 34:59 1996 ]>Received: (from sameer@localhost) by blacklodge.c2.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id ]>KAA05716; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 10:34:58 -0700 (PDT) ]>From: sameer <sameer@c2.net> ]>Message-Id: <199610241734.KAA05716@blacklodge.c2.net> ]>Subject: Re: www.c2.net/~netscum/mayt0.html ]>To: netscum@c2.net ]>Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 10:34:58 -0700 (PDT) ]>Cc: sameer@c2.net ]>In-Reply-To: <3279b6dd.124287235@mail.c2.net> from "netscum@c2.net" at "Oct ]> 24, 96 00:26:22 am" ]>X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL22 (25)] ]>MIME-Version: 1.0 ]>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII ]>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ]> ]> I'm sorry. If you don't remove the illegal web pages we're ]>going to be forced to shut off your account. ]> ]>> Dear Sameer, ]>> ]>> What was reported to you was mistaken. The referenced page contains no ]>> libel, and all the claims therein are factually correct and can be proved ]>> easily by browing public documents in DejaNews and AltaVista. ]>> ]>> Good luck in your SPA lawsuit!! ]>> ]>> ]>> On Wed, 23 Oct 1996 12:41:53 -0700 (PDT), sameer <sameer@c2.net> posted: ]>> ]>> > The URL in the subject (http://www.c2.net/~netscum/mayt0.html) ]>> > was reported to us as illegal libel. Please note that our policies ]>> > forbid any illegal activity on the site. Please remove this page as ]>> > soon as possible. Thank you. ]>> > ]>> > -- ]>> > Sameer Parekh Voice: ]>> 510-986-8770 ]>> > C2Net FAX: ]>> 510-986-8777 ]>> > The Internet Privacy Provider ]>> > http://www.c2.net/ sameer@c2.net ]>> > ]>> ]> ]> ]>-- ]>Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-986-8770 ]>C2Net FAX: 510-986-8777 ]>The Internet Privacy Provider ]>http://www.c2.net/ sameer@c2.net Note that Parekh pulled netscum's plug in October, 1996, because he didn't like the contents of a web page critical of Timmy C. May, If you review the Cyperpunks archives from that time, you will see that Parekh was being sued by the Software Publishers Association, was whining all over the mailing list and asking for "petitions" in his defense, and was claiming that he exercises no control over the content on C2net. Is that proof enough for you that the smelly Arab is a pathological liar? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
At 10:58 AM 12/20/97 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
I also wouldn't trust Lance Cottrell. He's selling privacy for the $$, not for the ideology; he'll bend over the moment he thinks there's more $$ in bending over, which is usually the case.
It's nice to give away privacy for free. Free turkey dinners at Thanksgiving are nice as well. But someone has to foot the bill. Perhaps with a Thanksgiving dinner everyone thanks you. Of the many remailer related phone calls I received, none of them had a "thank you" in them. More of the "I'm calling the police, FBI, my lawyer, my friends, the Better Business Bureau, the Attorney General, a higher up, and the SPA. blah, blah, blah..." It costs money to run a remailer. When we recently asked for $2,000 in donations to improve the Cracker remailer, we received about $800 over two month period. Just as there are free ISPs, and public access ISPs like Seattle Community Network and Virtually Wired, there are free remailers. But this is not the business model most ISPs enjoy. Perhaps Lance Cottrell has come across the proper business model for running a remailer. Have the users pay for it. The Cracker remailer operates mainly off of money I pulled out of my pocket. And I'm not really a user, or the person who runs it. We had some donations of course, and we've had other inkind donations, like free legal services. I'm still waiting to see a lawsuit on Cracker, or the police to show up with a warrant. I think it's great that Lance Cottrell has people pay to use his remailer. I wish another fifty companies would spring up and do the same. Doing it for ideology is nice, but the phone company, nor the backbone companies, or others really seem to like payments in ideology. They seem to want a legible signature on a check. -- Robert Costner Phone: (770) 512-8746 Electronic Frontiers Georgia mailto:pooh@efga.org http://www.efga.org/ run PGP 5.0 for my public key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 10:58 AM -0500 12/20/97, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: <SNIP>
I also wouldn't trust Lance Cottrell. He's selling privacy for the $$, not for the ideology; he'll bend over the moment he thinks there's more $$ in bending over, which is usually the case. Remember how Sameer Parekh's C2Net used to try to peddle a "privacy ISP" because he failed miserable and diversified into peddiling shitty software and making idiotic legal threats? He happily pulled plugs bases on content, while at the same time stating in court papers that he doesn't censor content. What a pathological liar.
I am very glad some helpful anonymous individual forwarded this note to me. These days I only read a filtered version of the Cypherpunks, although I host one of the unfiltered nodes, and Dr. Vulis has been in my kill file for some time. I am a bit startled at his assumption that because I charge for my services that I would bend at the first sign of trouble or pressure. Allow me to clarify my business interests. The Mixmaster software I created is free and licensed under GNU Copyleft. I do not and never have charged for the use of the Mixmaster remailer I run at mixmaster@remail.obscura.com. At this time we charge for anonymous ISP accounts, shell accounts and web hosting, and for the Anonymizer. I don't think anyone would every expect me to offer free Internet services with technical support. We also charge for unrestricted use of The Anonymizer (a free unlimited trial with 30 sec. delay is available to anyone). We did not want to charge for use of the Anonymizer, but the advertising supported model for the service fell through when advertisers turned out to be smart enough to see that the whole point of The Anonymizer is to keep them from gathering the data which is the whole reason the like to advertise on the Internet in the first place. The Anonymizer is not like a remailer in the resources it consumes. I have run remailers from home machines over 14.4kbps modems. The Anonymizer will overload a T1 (up to 1000 ms ping times) by its self. This translates to approximately $2000 of generosity per month, more than I can afford by a wide margin. As to my ideology, I think the fact that I run many of my services for free, and the rest with a limited free option, and that I could double or triple my income if I closed shop and went to work for someone else, speak for themselves. As long as privacy tools are free and run by hobbyists they remain, on the whole, toys. Fees allow me to have several people working full time to provide technical support, software development, and other services. I think anonymity is important. I have thought so for many years. I have put my time and efforts where my mouth is. I think that my contributions have not been insignificant. I hope that the public feels that privacy is important too, or I am wasting my time. The fact that they are willing to pay for strong privacy and anonymity shows that they do. Dr. Vulis' attack on Sameer was much worse than his attack on me. It is totally off base. Sameer handed off most of his "privacy ISP" business to me. The reason for this was not that it was failing, but that the software side of the business was so much more successful. About half his efforts were going toward a service generating about 10% of his revenues. Not to focus his efforts would have been very poor business practice. I don't care to be involved in long flame wars, or pointless and endless arguments, so I will not be following this thread on the list. My record, reputation, and positions are well documented, and easy to research. Anyone who wants the truth should have no difficulty finding it. -Lance Cottrell - ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki@infonex.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. http://www.infonex.com/~loki/ "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche - ---------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNJ2fLsogYxMMzklZAQGTVAf9E2X5gbOGsWP93lJiYEOQ2vtlmLhQJFSC v576ehJoqZZ402eFsT/rS/NQSYkknRr6isXKfvDarRnHy39ARfYQuZxmeSH9qOyP rIvYG6jCExubGoNFlFds4mEP/7SOrijnkaSqt1M0lrYjKHVhWcP1JjwRsRlCy2D2 sG+DzufbwoVLvx8cGtT5VhrMH/ZTCud98m7/0XMIL7+Ss7HzqGFtr/WIjwXRUmmK eOct3is9p1SPeMgpkhkZCObvBwi/lNxWVU/LqhXzmRxQgbM85AST5omp2WWGk7Xp ODmNmmzwNuVPvJGAchHibQpqxApheyK2yQRLTjT5foryT12mwV9xbQ== =bsCt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Lance Cottrell <loki@infonex.com> writes:
At 10:58 AM -0500 12/20/97, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: <SNIP>
I also wouldn't trust Lance Cottrell. He's selling privacy for the $$, not for the ideology; he'll bend over the moment he thinks there's more $$ in bending over, which is usually the case. Remember how Sameer Parekh's C2Net used to try to peddle a "privacy ISP" because he failed miserable and diversified into peddiling shitty software and making idiotic legal threats? He happily pulled plugs bases on content, while at the same time stating in court papers that he doesn't censor conten What a pathological liar.
I am very glad some helpful anonymous individual forwarded this note to me. These days I only read a filtered version of the Cypherpunks, although I host one of the unfiltered nodes, and Dr. Vulis has been in my kill file for some time.
I presume he won't see this response then.
I am a bit startled at his assumption that because I charge for my services that I would bend at the first sign of trouble or pressure. Allow me to
No, this is not my reasoning. I've concluded, based on the analysis of numerous quotes from Cottrell, that he sounds like an opponent of anonymity, privacy, and free speech (witness his attacks on "HipCrime", his censorship of "spam" (the term now used by censors to describe any content they don't approve of) et al - just use DejaNews). An "anti-spammer" selling "privacy" services is a lot like a devout nun working as a prostitute to support her convent - she does it for the money, but her heart won't be in it. Of course I respect lance's right to hold whatever beliefs he chooses and to oppose free speech. However I advise anyone against trusting a person who states that he opposes "spam" (defined as any content he doesn't like). If you use "Anonymizer", Lance will know who you are, and he states on his web site that he will reveal your identity if you "abuse" his service (which might well mean simply expressing an opinion that Lance doesn't like and judges to be "spam"). if Lance Cottrell wants to salvage the remains of his credibility, he should state unequivocally that he supports "spam" as defined by Chris Lewis. [snip]
Dr. Vulis' attack on Sameer was much worse than his attack on me. It is totally off base. Sameer handed off most of his "privacy ISP" business to me. The reason for this was not that it was failing, but that the software side of the business was so much more successful. About half his efforts were going toward a service generating about 10% of his revenues. Not to focus his efforts would have been very poor business practice.
As documented before, Sameer closed shop on C2net as a "privacy" ISP at about the same time (Oct 96) as a) Software Publishers Association sued him for software privacy and he was claiming in court papers that he doesn't censor content (as well as whining on this mailing list and begging for help) b) he simultaneously pulled the plug on one of his subscribers because he didn't like the contents of that subscibers's web page, which expressed critical opinions about Timmy May. This proves, in my opinion, that Sameer is a pathological liar. Further his settlement with SPA was a miserable failure for him, Sameer is also notorious for making legal threats against those who question the security of the crypto software he peddles. The fact that he dispatches his shysters to make threats, instead of even trying to answer our concerns with facts, shows how much he himself believes in his products. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
Sameer is also notorious for making legal threats against those who question the security of the crypto software he peddles. The fact that he dispatches his shysters to make threats, instead of even trying to answer our concerns with facts, shows how much he himself believes in his products.
Yes, those on the list a few months ago (around the time the list moved from cocksucker John Gilmores toad.com to the distributed list format) will remember censorous arab Sameer Parekh for sending abusive mail threatening legal action to those who criticised the security of his companies "stronghold" firewall, which I among others suspect to contain govt. backdoors, uneducated and foolish arabs such as Parekh should stick to what they do best: running kebab shops and/or selling cheap fake rolex watches to tourists. Datacomms Technologies data security Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"
Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk> writes:
Sameer is also notorious for making legal threats against those who questio the security of the crypto software he peddles. The fact that he dispatches his shysters to make threats, instead of even trying to answer our concerns with facts, shows how much he himself believes in his products.
Yes, those on the list a few months ago (around the time the list moved from cocksucker John Gilmores toad.com to the distributed list format) will remember censorous arab Sameer Parekh for sending abusive mail threatening legal action to those who criticised the security of his companies "stronghold" firewall, which I among others suspect to contain govt. backdoors, uneducated and foolish arabs such as Parekh should stick to what they do best: running kebab shops and/or selling cheap fake rolex watches to tourists.
Sameer parekh sounds like he lives by the Arab proverb: "Women for sons, boys for pleasure, but a camel for sheer extasy". --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk> writes:
Yes, those on the list a few months ago (around the time the list moved from cocksucker John Gilmores toad.com to the distributed list format) will remember censorous arab Sameer Parekh for sending abusive mail threatening legal action to those who criticised the security of his companies "stronghold" firewall, which I among others suspect to contain govt. backdoors, uneducated and foolish arabs such as Parekh should stick to what they do best: running kebab shops and/or selling cheap fake rolex watches to tourists.
Sameer parekh sounds like he lives by the Arab proverb: "Women for sons, boys for pleasure, but a camel for sheer extasy".
I guess I am missing something, but what is so good about camels? - Igor.
ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk> writes:
Yes, those on the list a few months ago (around the time the list moved from cocksucker John Gilmores toad.com to the distributed list format) will remember censorous arab Sameer Parekh for sending abusive mail threatening legal action to those who criticised the security of his companies "stronghold" firewall, which I among others suspect to contain govt. backdoors, uneducated and foolish arabs such as Parekh should stick to what they do best: running kebab shops and/or selling cheap fake rolex watches to tourists.
Sameer parekh sounds like he lives by the Arab proverb: "Women for sons, boys for pleasure, but a camel for sheer extasy".
I guess I am missing something, but what is so good about camels?
I don't know - you'd have to ask Sameer Parekh. Does he keep one in his C2Net office, and is it a male or a female camel? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
Sameer parekh sounds like he lives by the Arab proverb: "Women for sons, boys for pleasure, but a camel for sheer extasy".
I guess I am missing something, but what is so good about camels?
You are clearly not a perl programer. - -- Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header. Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep. ex-net.scum and proud You Say To People "Throw Off Your Chains" And They Make New Chains For Themselves? --Terry Pratchett. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNJ7Gi6QK0ynCmdStAQEqhAQAp08IAoRdLzYkEyf3tmy0ClzDsFZL8y0i SfrYhx0oANo2hpI3kC5VySZ/XClmuANaszfFIYNeIzp4jTbjfW3HFSQAFrJ6ToF1 rgvqPc75XZVh/EX+0Cz8pFJlwHRFKGTO+QPAjlSjdNg8b7vR51Adx5MZaFeGJ06G 5vrw2aVgmMM= =GbVi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk> writes:
Yes, those on the list a few months ago [...] will remember censorous arab Sameer Parekh for sending abusive mail threatening legal action to those who criticised the security of his companies "stronghold" firewall,
Stronghold is a web-server, not a firewall.
which I among others suspect to contain govt. backdoors,
Would you or Dimitri care to be more specific? Is there a specific flaw you have in mind? Are there any features of Stronghold which you think hinder third party validation? Is anything about C2Net policies which you think hinders open review? (Yes we know about the legal threats Dimitri received, personally I consider this is a mistake on C2Net's part). Adam
Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk> writes:
Yes, those on the list a few months ago [...] will remember censorous arab Sameer Parekh for sending abusive mail threatening legal action to those who criticised the security of his companies "stronghold" firewall,
Stronghold is a web-server, not a firewall.
My mistake, memory fails under the influence of alcohol.
which I among others suspect to contain govt. backdoors,
Would you or Dimitri care to be more specific?
Not really, This was just flamebait, I have no strong opinion one way or the other about stronghold, and have never looked at the product.
(Yes we know about the legal threats Dimitri received, personally I consider this is a mistake on C2Net's part).
This is the sole reason I have a low opinion of C2Net, hardly a reason to suspect their products are insecure you might say, but certainly a valid reason to treat their products with caution, as it shows a censorous trait in the company. Datacomms Technologies data security Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"
participants (8)
-
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} -
Adam Back -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
ichudov＠Algebra.COM -
Lance Cottrell -
nobody＠REPLAY.COM -
Paul Bradley -
Robert A. Costner