I just got off the phone with Peter Lewis, reporter for the New York Times. He is unaware of any grand consipracy to regulate the Net, but then again if there was one, I don't think they'd tell him. His piece that ran Saturday was badly mangled by the editorial process, especially since it ran on page one. Those articles get to be mangled by a whole new set of people who otherwise wouldn't get to touch it. I think Lewis has basically good intentions, and does do his homework before writing a story. Yecchh. Now I know why I don't rely on daily newspapers for my news (the Internet keeps me up on the fast-breaking stuff, and the Economist fills me in on the rest). The fact that most people rely papers and the even worse TV news does not bode well. Martha Siegel is just fucked up enough that she will probably push for legislation regulating the nets. Congress is just fucked up that they might pass it. Raph
Why is it that so many cypherpunks like the economist? I learned recently that Eric is a big fan. So am I. You're certainly not the first other cypherpunk to mention this. Weird. I mean, it's not exactly a radical publication... it just gets its *&#$*#$ facts right. Probably this is it. Doug
On Wed, 4 Jan 1995, Doug Barnes wrote:
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 07:42:57 -0600 (CST) From: Doug Barnes <db@Tadpole.COM> To: Raph Levien <raph@netcom.com> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: Re: Siegel and Lewis
Why is it that so many cypherpunks like the economist?
I learned recently that Eric is a big fan. So am I. You're certainly not the first other cypherpunk to mention this. Weird. I mean, it's not exactly a radical publication... it just gets its *&#$*#$ facts right. Probably this is it.
I am also a fan. I tend to focus on the subject matter economist prints. I just find it more on target than most if not all of the major U.S. media sources.
Doug
073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est 6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa - wichtig!
I tend to focus on the subject matter economist prints. I just find it more on target than most if not all of the major U.S. media sources.
I find _Reason_ quite excellent as well. -jon ( --------[ Jonathan D. Cooper ]--------[ entropy@intnet.net ]-------- ) ( PGP 2.6.2 keyprint: 31 50 8F 82 B9 79 ED C4 5B 12 A0 35 E0 9B C0 01 ) ( home page: http://taz.hyperreal.com/~entropy/ ]---[ Key-ID: 4082CCB5 )
On Wed, 4 Jan 1995, Doug Barnes wrote:
Why is it that so many cypherpunks like the economist?
I learned recently that Eric is a big fan. So am I. You're certainly not the first other cypherpunk to mention this. Weird. I mean, it's not exactly a radical publication... it just gets its *&#$*#$ facts right. Probably this is it.
Doug
The reason is, and I do not presume to speak for other individuals on this list, the Economist looks at the world from an independent (i.e. not owned by one of the major publishing houses, if I'm not mistaken) point of view, and is not afraid to pursue different analysis of a topic. I will also venture that the closest that we have in the US is Forbes. Dan
Guess I'm worse than Siegel & Lewis now, huh? On Fri, 6 Jan 1995, Dan Harmon wrote:
Why is it that so many cypherpunks like the economist? I learned recently that Eric is a big fan. So am I. You're certainly not the first other cypherpunk to mention this. Weird. I mean, it's not exactly a radical publication... it just gets its *&#$*#$ facts right. Probably this is it. Doug The reason is, and I do not presume to speak for other individuals on
On Wed, 4 Jan 1995, Doug Barnes wrote: this list, the Economist looks at the world from an independent (i.e. not owned by one of the major publishing houses, if I'm not mistaken) point of view, and is not afraid to pursue different analysis of a topic.
I will also venture that the closest that we have in the US is Forbes.
Dan
Raph Levien says:
I just got off the phone with Peter Lewis, reporter for the New York Times. He is unaware of any grand consipracy to regulate the Net, but then again if there was one, I don't think they'd tell him.
I doubt that there is one.
Martha Siegel is just fucked up enough that she will probably push for legislation regulating the nets. Congress is just fucked up that they might pass it.
Peter should take some responsibility for perpetuating Mr. Canter and Ms. Siegel. He failed, in my opinion, to properly reflect the situation in his articles about it in The Times. In particular, he did very little to convey that the two are de fact disbarred attorneys who had played the same games in "real space" that they had in Cyberspace and had been dragged through the coals by the Florida bar association for it because to almost anyone what they had been doing was a gross ethical violation. He also made it seem as though internet users were opposed to advertising, when, of course, advertising has been on the net for many many years, and newsgroups like comp.newprod exist to publish nothing but ads. He didn't properly convey that the defect in their behavior had been the jamming of other people's communications with their ads, rather than the act of advertising per se -- much like someone standing up during a town meeting on some local matter and starting to declaim loudly not on the purpose of the meeting but instead about how great their legal services were. Peter also did little to interview anyone with substantial standing in the internet community about what C&S were doing -- a quote or two from an old net hand like a Gene Spafford or someone of that ilk might have been valuable. As it was, he didn't produce much to counter the viewpoint that they were the victims rather than the victimizers. I think it is only because the "paper of record" published articles that made them look like their point of view had any merit at all that they managed to survive this long. As it is, the Tennessee Bar is looking in to whether they have committed any new ethical violations. I'd say, of course, that they had... Perry
Martha Siegel is just fucked up enough that she will probably push for legislation regulating the nets. Congress is just fucked up that they might pass it.
And if they do I will make it a definate point to do all I can to emigrate to the UK, the Netherlands, or somewhere else. This country is increasingly becoming a police state, and I've got too many years of life left to just passively deal with it. -jon ( --------[ Jonathan D. Cooper ]--------[ entropy@intnet.net ]-------- ) ( PGP 2.6.2 keyprint: 31 50 8F 82 B9 79 ED C4 5B 12 A0 35 E0 9B C0 01 ) ( home page: http://taz.hyperreal.com/~entropy/ ]---[ Key-ID: 4082CCB5 )
On Tue, 3 Jan 1995, Jonathan Cooper wrote:
Martha Siegel is just fucked up enough that she will probably push for legislation regulating the nets. Congress is just fucked up that they might pass it.
And if they do I will make it a definate point to do all I can to emigrate to the UK, the Netherlands, or somewhere else.
This country is increasingly becoming a police state, and I've got too many years of life left to just passively deal with it.
uhm Jon, it seems that emigrating would be passively dealing with it, kinda contradicting your statement that you re too young to just passively deal with it. i want to know everything http://www.mcs.com/~nesta/home.html i want to be everywhere Nesta's Home Page i want to fuck everyone in the world & i want to do something that matters /-/ a s t e zine
On Tue, 3 Jan 1995, Jonathan Cooper wrote:
Martha Siegel is just fucked up enough that she will probably push for legislation regulating the nets. Congress is just fucked up that they might pass it.
And if they do I will make it a definate point to do all I can to emigrate to the UK, the Netherlands, or somewhere else.
This country is increasingly becoming a police state, and I've got too many years of life left to just passively deal with it.
As I understand it, the government owns a portion of the internet. What they want to regulate about that is their business. What I want to know is how can they regulate what private business and citizen's do with there Fiber Optic's, ISDN lines, telephone lines, and computers. If the government was to ban anything on the net, it would shurly seem to me to be in violation of the first ammenment. Things like pirated software, being illegal already, is one thing, but our mail, conversations, ect. is diffrent. Does anyone have any information on what grouds Seigel and Lewis plan to use for legislation? If they do pass laws regulating the 'net I hope someone comes up with a no-spamming law, then I am getting a ticket on Jon Coopers plane out of the country. Groove on Dude Michael Conlen
As I understand it, the government owns a portion of the internet. What
Yes. And through my work's upcoming link, so will they. So what?
they want to regulate about that is their business. What I want to know
On their own networks, surely.
is how can they regulate what private business and citizen's do with there Fiber Optic's, ISDN lines, telephone lines, and computers. If the
They already do - look at the regulations on telcos, power companies, water companies, cellular/paging companies, lawyers, doctors, etc.
government was to ban anything on the net, it would shurly seem to me to be in violation of the first ammenment. Things like pirated software,
An interesting point. Any legal views from someone more versed in the law than I? -jon ( --------[ Jonathan D. Cooper ]--------[ entropy@intnet.net ]-------- ) ( PGP 2.6.2 keyprint: 31 50 8F 82 B9 79 ED C4 5B 12 A0 35 E0 9B C0 01 ) ( home page: http://taz.hyperreal.com/~entropy/ ]---[ Key-ID: 4082CCB5 )
On Wed, 4 Jan 1995, Jonathan Cooper wrote:
is how can they regulate what private business and citizen's do with there Fiber Optic's, ISDN lines, telephone lines, and computers. If the
They already do - look at the regulations on telcos, power companies, water companies, cellular/paging companies, lawyers, doctors, etc.
A big difference between the 'net and some of the above, is that the net has been around in a very large presence (internatonaly) before the laws are being introduced, where as paging and cellular service didnt exist. As far as lawyers and doctors and lawyers, one of the big things the government does is protect agianst quacks. Not to many people are going to argue with this. The government wants to protect us from speech in the case of the 'net, well there are quite a few people who are going to stand up for their first amenment rights. If you want your own communication service, you can buy it. weather you use fiber based WAN's or go straight for satalite service, used by companies such as Holiday Inn, or Circuit City. You can exchange any information you want. I think the important thing to remember is that net access is not a right. My service provider has the right to give service to whom they please, as long as race, sex, or creed are not deciding factors. What goes across .gov and .mil computers is one thing, however what commes across sprintlink's computers to my service proveder to my computer is up to sprintlink, Intnet.net and myself. I dont care to read racist comments, so I dont view them. If I want to download nudie gifs, its my business, and right as stated under the First Amenment.
Michael Conlen says:
As I understand it, the government owns a portion of the internet.
Nope. Sorry. They don't.
Does anyone have any information on what grouds Seigel and Lewis plan to use for legislation?
Peter Lewis is a reporter, and to my knowledge has no plans to lose his job by lobbying for legislation. I am unaware of what his opinions on this topic might be. My only beef with him is that his stories tend to be full of inaccuracies. This mornings, for instance, gave the impression that there are no unpatented algorithms available to do high-quality compression -- when of course, there are many. Perry
participants (9)
-
Black Unicorn -
Carol Anne Braddock -
Dan Harmon -
db＠Tadpole.COM -
Jonathan Cooper -
Michael Conlen -
Nesta Stubbs -
Perry E. Metzger -
raph＠netcom.com