Re: rights in cyberspace
"James Sturgeon" said
4. the accused would have the right to confront accusors
With all the anonymous remailers, etc, how do you expect this to happen? You yourself refuse to be identified (as is your right) yet you promote the right to confront accusors?
the point is, this `citizen' organization is built of people who agree to the rules `upon entry'. i forgot to mention that the charter of the organization would require agreements by individual users. for example: `i am todd marvin peterson, this account is for my use only and i will not permit use of it by any other person'. now, you are probably going to say that this is an invasion of your privacy, but then on the other hand, so would detweiler. who's right? (hee, hee). guys, it seems to me that if you want to censor detweiler, then you would have to construct a system where names map to people as a `given'. otherwise, you are just going to be tortured forever by your own `cryptoanarchy'. (a complex subject, one that i don't fully grasp, perhaps only the author t.c. may does) if you don't want to `liquidate' detweiler, then WHY THE HELL IS EVERYONE SO HOSTILE TO INNOCENT BYSTANDERS WHO HAVE THE SAME INITIALS BY COINCIDENCE?! is this your idea of an ideal meeting place? where there is suspicion and distrust?
3. a police force representing the authority of the organization over members would be required for enforcement.
How can you have a police force? Who will be there to see you type something evil? I can see you shoot someone and the judge can ask my testimony to help convict you, but what about computers? With the use of modems an act can be committed anonymously since the real world has no proof that was you who did something... only that it was your account that was used.
take your pick -- no accountability for actions whatsoever, *ever*, and you have rampant `detweilering'. or, people agree to some accountability. there is no such thing as `an anonymous act'. people who live in communities can ask that each other adhere to the laws of the community and evict them if there is evidence otherwise. the purpose of a trial is to `judge evil deeds'. let me give you an example. suppose that i had technology that would allow me to `morph' to the point of looking exactly like tim may. except, i would go and terrorize everyone in denver and urinate on sidewalks, flash women, etc. you say that `modems allow an anonymous act'. well, for me, that morphing is the same way, it allows me to run rampant without any personal consequence. the way that whoever posted the bogus `death to cryptoanarchist' stuff glommed his signature, this is a similar idea. so, should we allow morphing? or are you going to insist that morphing is an uncontrollable technology and therefore regulation is futile? you see, anything is possible among people who are willing to cooperate. if we decide that maymorphing is illegal in our society, we can work to prevent it. but if we have the ulterior motive that, ultimately, we don't want to be held accountable for `our own evil deeds', then you have anarchy, or rampant detweilering. (hee, hee, love that verb) note: i am not arguing against remailers. they are useful in some forums. but what you seem to have right now is an `anything goes' atmosphere that practically invites abuse. you don't even appear to have simple preventions of things like mailbombing etc. do you condone mailbombing through remailers?
Amazing that a person who has a fairly good grasp of the English language and a pretty good vocabulary can't seem to find the shift key.
WOW!! A SHIFT KEY!! WHAT A CONCEPT!! well, it appears that no one here is interested in developing a sort of `cyberspatial community' that has codified rules of conduct. do you know of anyone who might? seriously, i mean. don't give me snide email like `try the nsa'... pseudonymously, --tmp
well, it appears that no one here is interested in developing a sort of `cyberspatial community' that has codified rules of conduct. do you know of anyone who might? seriously, i mean.
You might try the "cypherwonks" list, run on anon.penet.fi; it addresses exactly the issues you're interested in.
--tmp
Eli ebrandt@hmc.edu
On Mon, 4 Apr 1994, Eli Brandt wrote:
well, it appears that no one here is interested in developing a sort of `cyberspatial community' that has codified rules of conduct. do you know of anyone who might? seriously, i mean.
awe.....nice try at saving SOME dignity. i hope this is not considered a flame, but it is a valid point, someone will eventually step in and set rules, but there is a saying about rules....... lake@uenics.evansville.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Isn't it nice to have only one question in the "modern world"? Zero or One. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 4 Apr 1994 tmp@netcom.com wrote:
guys, it seems to me that if you want to censor detweiler, then you would have to construct a system where names map to people as a `given'. otherwise, you are just going to be tortured forever by your own `cryptoanarchy'. (a complex subject, one that i don't fully grasp, perhaps only the author t.c. may does) if you don't want to `liquidate' detweiler, then WHY THE HELL IS EVERYONE SO HOSTILE TO INNOCENT BYSTANDERS WHO HAVE THE SAME INITIALS BY COINCIDENCE?! is this your idea of an ideal meeting place? where there is suspicion and distrust?
I comprehend my own brand of crypto/cyber-anarchy. I personally do not go for any of the regulations or "protections" that have been proposed so far. IMO, if you want to put your machine on the net, take your chances. It's getting very cheap to set up a node now, and if I choose to do so I would not take kindly to any restrictions upon my activity, be it legal, or illegal even. Myself, I would much rather take the lumps of some abuse, rather than have ANY regualtion put on my usage of my personal node, or interaction between connected nodes. This makes room for alot of abuse, I admit that, but I just don't see how all these Bill-O-CyberRights stuff, and CyberKommunity will work when your dealing with a space that has no boundary. This is a metric space, whos distances are measured in connectivity, there are no real boundaries as the are easily breached and morphed. Basically I don't care if you are or not Dietwieller, so I won't get flurried or nmothing over it.
take your pick -- no accountability for actions whatsoever, *ever*, and you have rampant `detweilering'. or, people agree to some accountability. there is no such thing as `an anonymous act'. people who live in communities can ask that each other adhere to the laws of the community and evict them if there is evidence otherwise. the purpose of a trial is to `judge evil deeds'.
IMO, FUCK that shit. How the hell are you going to evict me if I break one of the laws? There is no way you can develop a fool-proof system to control use, I even seriously doubt you can install a shitty system even. Basically if I want to do something, it will get done. The whole concept of a police force controlling cyberspace is a leap back about a billion evolution cycles. You can't patrol an amorphous blob. I would actually prefer the possibility to Detwielering so to speak,than to allow someone to try and control this. If they dont like what my node is doing, than cut connections to my node.
so, should we allow morphing? or are you going to insist that morphing is an uncontrollable technology and therefore regulation is futile? you see, anything is possible among people who are willing to cooperate. if we decide that maymorphing is illegal in our society, we can work to prevent it. but if we have the ulterior motive that, ultimately, we don't want to be held accountable for `our own evil deeds', then you have anarchy, or rampant detweilering. (hee, hee, love that verb)
This loses consequence in Kyberspace. You can decide that hacking is illegal(cracking) but you wont stop it, you may stop the casual cracker, but someone who does it professionally or witha passion etc... will not be able to be stopped. You are unable to hold someone accountable for their own deeds in a space like kyberspace where psuedonyms are part of the fabric of the space.
well, it appears that no one here is interested in developing a sort of `cyberspatial community' that has codified rules of conduct. do you know of anyone who might? seriously, i mean. don't give me snide email like `try the nsa'...
Your right, I dont want a kyberspace community, thats the wrong idea. Dont bring your three dimensional models into a space that is amorphous and IMO best related to a infitine dimensions metric space. Perhaps that is not the aboslute correct topological term for it, but I think it should get the point across. You're eqipped with a hundred billion nueron brain, that's wired and fired, and it's a reality generating device, but you've got too do it. Free youself ----Tim Leary----
participants (4)
-
Adam Lake -
Eli Brandt -
Grand Epopt Feotus -
tmp＠netcom.com