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

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:54:05 -0800 (PST) From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>

Sir,

Please don't assume anything about my sex. Do you think only men know how to use nym servers?

I asked you to keep our communications private. You did not do so. I have nothing further to say to you.

I understand your desire to keep this secret. Believe me, I know this must be an unpleasant situation for you. Nonetheless, I believe this issue is so important and relevant to the cypherpunks community that it outweighs your wish to keep it a secret. I respect the difficulty of your situation, and would not try to air this issue if I did not think exposing it immediately was of the utmost importance. Please, try to see this from as disinterested a point of view as possible. I know it's difficult being both the moderator and one of the parties involved in the dispute. However, we have a situation here where threats of libel have suppressed not only technical discussion of the actual software in question (which actually wouldn't be much of a discussion), but even discussion on the mechanics of moderation, something highly relevant to the list. Worse yet, people subscribed to the list DON'T EVEN KNOW that this discussion is being suppressed. We need to get this issue out, even if only in part. If my article was unacceptable, can you at least tell me which parts I should eliminate. I am willing to censor as much of it as I need to to get it published, as long as my main point gets accross. Surely you must agree that my main point doesn't have anything to do with the piece of software involved, right? Has it really come down to a situation where even the *fact* that some articles are being suppressed must be suppressed? Please. Think of the purpose of cypherpunks. Do the right thing. I am flexible. I will edit my article even more. But please, tell me what I can do to get it onto the main list. People need to know what is happening. I append my article here once again. If you really cannot accept it, at least tell me what I can change to get it accepted. Thank you. - -- To: cypherpunks@toad.com CC: tcmay@got.net Subject: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Well, folks, tonight I have witnessed the frightening dangers of moderation and censorship first-hand, and would like to tell you what has happened. I think there is an important lesson to be learned from these incidents. Before I explain what has happened, I want to make one thing absolutely clear. Though I've thought the moderation of cypherpunks was a terrible idea from the start and am even more convinced of it now, I don't assign any blame to Sandy. I believe he offered to moderate the list with the best of intentions, and I sincerely appreciate his efforts to try to revive what was once a fantastic mailing list, even if in my opinion those efforts have backfired. Sandy has been a valuable advocate of cypherpunk beliefs and a lively contributor to cypherpunks list for a long time. Though the moderation experiment has resulted in some terrible consequences, we can't blame him for what has happened. If the events I have witnessed tonight occured with such a high-standing member of the cypherpunks community in charge, the cause of them can only be the very nature of moderation and censorship. I don't think any of us could have done much better in Sandy's shoes. Now, what happened tonight? As some of you may recall, a month or so ago I vehemently argued against the elimination of the cypherpunks-unedited mailingt list. Some people (though no one associated with toad.com) were claiming that 3 mailing lists might be too much load, and that having cypherpunks and cypherpunks-flames would be enough. I argued that not only would the delay of waiting for a decision put alternate cypherpunks moderators at a disadvantage, it would make it farm more difficult to convince people of the moderator's honesty as there would be no guarantee that messages made it to either list. Fortunately, cypherpunks-unedited did get created (it seems no one "in charge" ever intended not to create it). Well, as it turns out, a number of messages have made it neither to cypherpunks nor to cypherpunks-flames. Making matters worse, however, not only are certain messages being suppressed from both lists, but even messages mentioning that fact get suppressed from both the cypherpunks and the cypherpunks-flames lists! Here's exactly what happened. I was beginning to believe that Dmitri Vulis had sent an (admitedly objectionable) message to the cypherpunks mailing list, but that the message had gone to neither the cypherpunks nor the cypherpunks-flames lists. Since I was under the impression that every article was supposed to go to one list or the other, and many people probably still believe that, I mentioned this somewhat startling fact on the cypherpunks mailing list, I believe in response to a post by Tim May on the same subject. Tim replied (in a message Cc'ed to cypherpunks--though I don't think it went anywhere but to -unedited), asking me in the message, "Can you send to the list, with a copy to me, the articles CENSOREDCENSOREDCENS OREDCENSOREDCENSORE?" I therefore went back through my mail archives and found a copy of the message that I believed had gone to neither mailing list. I sent it to Tim and to cypherpunks. I prepended a few paragraphs in which I asked people to confirm that the message had gone to neither mailing list. Among other things in those paragraphs, I stated that Vulis's message was "verifiably false". It was clear from the context that I was forwarding this message to ask people which lists it had gone to, not because I believed the content to be correct or even at all convincing or interesting. That message I sent, quoting Vulis's, immediately follows this message, after the line '========'. Then, tonight, I received a message from Sandy, which I include below a second '========' marker. In that letter, Sandy had explicitly aknowledged not only that he had sent Vulis's letter to neither mailing list, but that he wouldn't send my letter to either mailing list, either! He claimed that he couldn't forward Vulis's message because it was libel, and accused me of committing libel simply by quoting Vulis's message, even though I explicitly stated that Vulis's message was verifiably false. Well, this travesty must exposed, even if I can't make known all the details for fear of libel charges. I am therefore forwarding everything I can to the cypherpunks mailing list, for all to see. As you can see, Vulis made unfounded and incorrect charges that a particular system contained a security hole. Believe me, if I could get into the details of the case I could convince you easily that his claim is not true. However, since even quoting that claim apparently opens me up to charges of libel, I can't give you the details. Thus, I have censored (by overriting original text with the letters CENSORED) any portion of quoted messages that might give you an indication of what system Vulis actually claimed had a security hole. This censorship should not, however, affect my main point, and the lesson that I hope we can all take away from this. When it comes down to it, the details of this case do not matter. What does matter is that even when the "good guys" attempt benign censorship, it can have frighteningly far-reaching effects on people's ability to discuss otherwise reasonable topics such as the mechanics of the cypherpunks list. I generally dislike censorship and moderation, but the consequences of the cypherpunks experiment have gone far beyond anything I could have imagined. In closing, let me reiterate that I don't think most of this is Sandy's, John's, or anyone else's fault. Given the knowledge I have of this case, I believe Sandy has unwittingly found himself ensnarled in a nasty legal situation where, for fear of legal reprisal he must block articles that he has a moral obligation to send to cypherpunks-flames. I certainly don't envy his position. [To moderator Sandy: I believe we must get the content of this message to the main cypherpunks mailing list. I have done everything I can to ensure that the message contains no libel. If, for some reason, you still can't send it on to the main cypherpunks mailing list, can you please tell me specifically which parts cause problems. I will the CENSOR them out and try again. This message contains important, highly relevant information for the cypherpunks community. Please help me do what it takes to get it accepted by the moderation process. Thanks.] ======== To: tcmay@got.net CC: cypherpunks@toad.com Chain: nym=antimod In-reply-to: <v03007802af21505d61f5@[207.167.93.63]> (tcmay@got.net) Subject: Re: Is Sandy really censoring criticisms of CENSORCENSOREDCENSOREDC? Okay, I went through my old mail, and I'm fairly sure this is the message. I'm convinced it never went to the flames list, and now that I've found out I'm on the -unedited list after all, I think it probably didn't go to the regular cypherpunks list either. Can people on the various lists confirm this for me? Given the total lack of technical content, the flamey nature of the article, and the fact that it is verifiably false (CENSOREDCENSOREDC ENSOREDCENSOREDCE), I can see people arguing it should have gone to - -flames (though I would probably disagree). However, I don't want to debate that. What I object to more strongly and think is wrong is the fact that it went to *neither* list. A lot of people out there are subscribing to the cypherpunks-flames and cypherpunks lists thinking that they will see everything that gets rejected (albeit with a substantial delay). If this is not the case, it should be made clear. Otherwise, it's not moderation, but dishonesty. - --

From cypherpunks-errors@toad.com Thu Jan 30 17:26:50 1997 From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Subject: Security alert!!! To: cypherpunks@toad.com Date: Thu, 30 Jan 97 16:15:21 EST Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y. Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA18833; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:17:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from uu.psi.com (uu.psi.com [38.9.86.2]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA18824; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:16:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA02017 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 97 16:57:10 -0500 Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Thu, 30 Jan 97 16:19:19 EST for cypherpunks@toad.com Comments: All power to the ZOG! Message-Id: <aw5c2D4w165w@bwalk.dm.com> Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com Precedence: bulk Lines: 19

WARNING: There's a rogue trojan horse out there on the internet CENSOREDCENS OREDCENSOREDCENSOREDCEN. It's actually a hacked-up version of CENSOR with a backdoor, which allows hackers (or whoever knows the backdoor) to steal credit card numbers and other confidentil information on the Internet. Be careful! Always use encryption. Do not send confidential information 9such as passwords and credit card numbers) to any site running the trojan horse CENSOREDCENS. In general, beware of "snake oil" security products and hacked-up versions of free software. Please repost this warning to all relevant computer security forums. - --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps ======== X-From: sandfort@crl.com Sat Feb 08 00:56:23 1997 Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 16:45:31 -0800 (PST) From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com> To: Against Moderation <antimod@nym.alias.net> Subject: Re: Is Sandy really censoring criticisms of CENSOREDCENSOREDCENSORE? In-Reply-To: <19970207220720.15530.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hi, On 7 Feb 1997, Against Moderation wrote:

What I object to more strongly and think is wrong is the fact that it went to *neither* list.

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. As soon as I can arrange it with John, I am going to stop moderating the list. In the interim, I *will not* be sending your post onto either the Flames or the Moderated lists. This is done for legal reason. As it is, you have already published a libel on the unedited list by repeating Dimitri's libel. This exposes you to legal liability, but as an anonymous poster, you are somewhat insulated from the consequences of your act. If you would like to PRIVATELY discuss this matter with me, I would not mind going into more detail with you. Suffice it to say, I any re-publication by me of Dimitri's libel would expose John and myself to legal liability and could also act to insulate Dimitri from liability as a result of CENSOREDCENSOREDCE NSOREDCENDOREDCENDOREDC. Take care, S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ======== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMvwRPoCHQnqYPZ9VAQF60gQAizQlcgLKHMviZclZZtGEHm0AcWjjhijr bj809X1/70+KUzfHXJ9vVt4Jc5nqJblKlWiuux/KnSsnAXT8C0pyaUpp1vARYE2C w78pMfZxNQRuo/0IYuHfEb/rhdGieLQbqFGkpN3gj9iRzU4jOE7/PFejJKLYckDT 7aP0LdeRS/8= =wCgj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----