From the keyboard of: Tom Allard <m1tca00@FRB.GOV>

Well, Sternlight has threatened to talk to my superiors (no one is superior to me :) if I don't apoligize to the world for forwarding beker@netcom.com's message posted to this list to alt.security.pgp.

Heh. Sternlight is really trying to throw his weight around here, isn't he. How sad, but not surprising. His job will be much easier if he can silence some of the opposition to his half-truths and innuendo. As Jim Thomas notes in the following post to alt.security.pgp, M. Sternlight is somewhat ignorant of Copyright law and precedent, including such things as fair use, implicit assignment of rights, etc. Note that Mr. Thomas posted his missive to a usenet newsgroup that receives posts from cypherpunks. The fact that we have to use manual means to make the gateway go in two directions makes it no less valid a gateway than those between other mailing lists and usenet newsgroups (like comp.society.cu-digest, for example :-). --------- From: jthomas@well.sf.ca.us (Jim Thomas) Newsgroups: alt.fan.david-sternlight,alt.security.pgp Subject: Re: David Sternlight's Slurs About Folks With "2.3a" Keys Date: 20 May 1994 04:02:28 GMT Message-ID: <2rhcok$sbq@nkosi.well.com> In article <strnlghtCq2Eqs.2xB@netcom.com>, David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> wrote:

By publishing a private e-mail, both beker and Johnson are in violation of my copyright in that message, since it was a private communication and no permission was given to republish.

Not surprisingly, Sternlight reveals his ignorance of copyright law.

Thus beker has now committed a new violation of his netcom agreement, and Johnson shows he has bad judgement. What's more, by trying to make what should be a private matter, to be decided by netcom based on their own rules, into a public cause celebre, and by writing to netcom as Johnson did to intervene in a private matter, he has made the situation worse for beker, not better.

Sternlight has failed to demonstrate: 1) That the first alleged violation was, in fact, a violation, and not simply a labeling ruse. Sternlight has rushed to judgment and tried and convicted without evidence. An honorable person would first ascertain facts prior to taking action 2) Sternlight claims a second violation of netcom's agreement without demonstrating what the violation is. An honorable person would reproduce the relevant text of the agreement and then make the corresponding case. Instead, Sternlight asserts. This is consistent with his style in which he defames others and then complains that he is defamed when others hoist him by his own petard. 3) That Sternlight snoops through others' stuff and then leaps to judgment on the bases of superficial cues is, indeed, a matter of public concern. If Sternlight snooped through my system files and found titles such as suckme.gif, jailbait.gif, and 69riders.exe, would he have complained to our university officials that I am in violation of school anti-porn policies? If the facts of Sternlight's latest escapades are accurate, and Sternlight's post seems to confirm them, then it is fully appropriate to alert the public that a demonstrable defamer is actively perusing accounts and notifying sysads of what he finds. Perhaps Sternlight should look up "honor" in his dictionary. Jim Thomas ...

David