Banning any subscriber
Hi again, I want to thank everyone for their repsonce to my earlier mail. I do have some questions however. 1. CypherPunks supports crypto so people cant tamper w/ my mail but you want to censor somebody at the source. How can you support this? 2. Everyone says this list is private. Nowhere has this EVER been mentioned in any conversation or info that I have read. The implication in all the posts, print articles, and talk at the local group meet led me to believe CypherPunks was a public forum for discussion and implimentation of crypto related material. Was I misunderstanding something? 3. Sine at least part of the networks and hardware the mail list is used on is publily funded how can you construe it as private w/o some form of moderator or subscriction contract? 4. The responces to L.D. about mail-bombs and posing as a AIDS lab is much worse and more troublesome to me than anything I have seen L.D. post. Not only is some of the actions proposed criminal but I fail to see how a group which relies on its reputation can support or condone such comments. 5. If you don't like what he says then kill the mail and forget it.
Jim Choate has raised some questions about the nature of the List, about its privacy, and has said that some of us are trying to scare Detweiler with phony AIDS test results. Here are my responses to these questions. I suppose I'd best copy the Cypherpunks list as well, though there's been too much noise lately about Detweiler, by Detweiler, and for Detweiler. Oh well.
I want to thank everyone for their repsonce to my earlier mail. I do have some questions however.
1. CypherPunks supports crypto so people cant tamper w/ my mail but you want to censor somebody at the source. How can you support this?
Personally, I don't support it, and only a few folks have publically called for it, as is their right in a forum like ours. Their concern is likely that a single person can in fact bring down a list, can be so disruptive that the S/N drops to an unacceptable level. A better solution, if the CPU at Toad can handle the extra load, is the filtering software used now on the Extropians list. Subscribers can filter out threads they don'e want to see, users, etc. This may be coming to the Cypherpunks list. Please note that Eric Hughes never removed L. Dewtweiler from the list (nor anyone else, so far as I know). In fact, Detweiler requested that he be unsubscribed. He may or may not be subscribed under another account name, and, in any case, he seems to see some posts. And he bombards us every night with his missives.
2. Everyone says this list is private. Nowhere has this EVER been mentioned in any conversation or info that I have read. The implication in all the posts, print articles, and talk at the local group meet led me to believe CypherPunks was a public forum for discussion and implimentation of crypto related material. Was I misunderstanding something?
The list is not "private" in the sense of being a deep, dark secret. Instructions on how to join are easily available. But most mailing lists have a different "feel," a different sense of "community," than mere newsgroups have. Newsgroups encourage casual drop-ins who don't bother to read the traffic, but who just fire off a few posts and then are gone; at least with mailing lists it takes some small effort to get on and off them. We've had debates every few months about mailing list vs. newsgroup, and I can't stop this debate from happening again. There are reasons pro and con to have Cypherpunks a mailing list, and mailing lists continue to flourish for a variety of reasons.
3. Sine at least part of the networks and hardware the mail list is used on is publily funded how can you construe it as private w/o some form of moderator or subscriction contract?
If a car happens to drive on a public street are all rights to privacy lost? If a phone call is made and part of the signal path includes a publically-subsidized link, is all privacy lost? Is your e-mail subject to inspection by the authorities merely because it passes through systems they control? Ultimately, this is why we support encryption and free markets. (Well, many of us support free markets.) In the meantime, the Electronic Communication Privacy Act protects e-mail against certain kinds of seizures. It's not clear (to me) what this means for "quasi-private" mailing lists, but at least it may provide some legal defense should government agents cite discussions on this list as evidence of sedition, treason, conspiracy, etc.
4. The responces to L.D. about mail-bombs and posing as a AIDS lab is much worse and more troublesome to me than anything I have seen L.D. post. Not only is some of the actions proposed criminal but I fail to see how a group which relies on its reputation can support or condone such comments.
Hold on there, pardner! That post you are referring to was yet another one of Detweiler's own "an12070" posts! Even if there wasn't compelling circumstantial evidence--cited by so many people here--that S. Boxx = The Executioner = Psychopunk = Zen Master = an12070 = L. Detweiler, then this latest rant would _still_ have the stylistic earmarks of a put-on. Read it again, if you can stomach it, and bear this in mind. I hope this helps. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.
Jim Choate has raised some questions about the nature of the List, about its privacy, and has said that some of us are trying to scare Detweiler with phony AIDS test results.
Here are my responses to these questions. I suppose I'd best copy the Cypherpunks list as well, though there's been too much noise lately about Detweiler, by Detweiler, and for Detweiler. Oh well.
I want to thank everyone for their repsonce to my earlier mail. I do have some questions however.
1. CypherPunks supports crypto so people cant tamper w/ my mail but you wan
t
to censor somebody at the source. How can you support this?
Personally, I don't support it, and only a few folks have publically called f or it, as is their right in a forum like ours. Their concern is likely that a single person can in fact bring down a list, can be so disruptive that the S/N drops to an unacceptable level.
A better solution, if the CPU at Toad can handle the extra load, is the filtering software used now on the Extropians list. Subscribers can filter out threads they don'e want to see, users, etc. This may be coming to the Cypherpunks list.
Please note that Eric Hughes never removed L. Dewtweiler from the list (nor anyone else, so far as I know). In fact, Detweiler requested that he be unsubscribed. He may or may not be subscribed under another account name, and, in any case, he seems to see some posts.
And he bombards us every night with his missives.
2. Everyone says this list is private. Nowhere has this EVER been mentioned
in any conversation or info that I have read. The implication in all the
posts, print articles, and talk at the local group meet led me to believ e CypherPunks was a public forum for discussion and implimentation of cryp to related material. Was I misunderstanding something?
The list is not "private" in the sense of being a deep, dark secret. Instructions on how to join are easily available. But most mailing lists have a different "feel," a different sense of "community," than mere newsgroups have. Newsgroups encourage casual drop-ins who don't bother to read the traffic, but who just fire off a few posts and then are gone; at least with mailing lists it takes some small effort to get on and off them.
We've had debates every few months about mailing list vs. newsgroup, and I can't stop this debate from happening again. There are reasons pro and con to have Cypherpunks a mailing list, and mailing lists continue to flourish for a variety of reasons.
3. Sine at least part of the networks and hardware the mail list is used on
is publily funded how can you construe it as private w/o some form of moderator or subscriction contract?
If a car happens to drive on a public street are all rights to privacy lost? If a phone call is made and part of the signal path includes a publically-subsidized link, is all privacy lost? Is your e-mail subject to inspection by the authorities merely because it passes through systems they control?
Ultimately, this is why we support encryption and free markets. (Well, many of us support free markets.) In the meantime, the Electronic Communication Privacy Act protects e-mail against certain kinds of seizures. It's not clear (to me) what this means for "quasi-private" mailing lists, but at least it may provide some legal defense should government agents cite discussions on this list as evidence of sedition, treason, conspiracy, etc.
4. The responces to L.D. about mail-bombs and posing as a AIDS lab is much worse and more troublesome to me than anything I have seen L.D. post. No t only is some of the actions proposed criminal but I fail to see how a group which relies on its reputation can support or condone such comment s.
Hold on there, pardner! That post you are referring to was yet another one of Detweiler's own "an12070" posts! Even if there wasn't compelling circumstantial evidence--cited by so many people here--that S. Boxx = The Executioner = Psychopunk = Zen Master = an12070 = L. Detweiler, then this latest rant would _still_ have the stylistic earmarks of a put-on.
Read it again, if you can stomach it, and bear this in mind.
I hope this helps.
--Tim May
-- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.
First, I NEVER made any accusative statements that ANYONE was trying to scarey ANYBODY with AIDS statements or otherwise. I DID say that such statements bother me more than any statements that L.D. has made. To make such an act against somebody because they print something you don't like, no matter how heinous, is bigotry plain and simple. The ends do not justify the means (in my opionion it should be never) in this case. To react this alleged idiots posts with anything other than a simple deletion is silly and to take active steps is insane and possible criminal. Some people have sent me private e-mail saying he has threatened them and other such things and that this justifies banning (and in some mail apparently any other action). I used to work in a tech support dept. for a computer company and a customer threatened to fly from Mi. to Austin to shoot me and beat up the rest of the dept. because FedEx sent his package to Puerto Rico by mistake. Does this justify me banning him from tech support? I would say no and in reality while I am shure he broke some kind of law it ain't worth the hassle to prove I am right (it seldom is really). I would say that the only rational way to respond to the problem is to ignore it. Socio-paths thrive on attention, deny it and they go where they can get it (has anyone mentioned alt.conspiracy to this guy?)... Now some of you are going to say that I am a newbie and should be ignored. That is fine, but remember one thing - newbies is what an organization like this requires to thrive. If you really want to make CypherPunks work and get something worthwhile accomplished then please drop L.D. and this whole thread. The peace simply isn't worth the cost to obtain it...(IMHO) If this is truly a private list then you need to put more effort into being clear that this is a indivudualy supported mail-list and is not officialy associated w/ CypherPunks. I would offer the following protocol: 1. User sends mail w/ 'subscribe' in the body. 2. The mailer responds w/ a numbered header. 3. The user is requied to copy the message from #2 completely and to append 'agree'. 4. The user is then added to the list. While it is true that some of you may see this as trivial but if you really want to keep CypherPunks an open forum and this list private (ensuring that they are seen as seperate entities) it is critical that this is made at every oppportunity.
On Sat, 27 Nov 1993, Jim choate wrote:
If this is truly a private list then you need to put more effort into being clear that this is a indivudualy supported mail-list and is not officialy associated w/ CypherPunks. I would offer the following protocol:
"Officially" associated with Cypherpunks? I don't know about where you are but in most places in this country there is no "Official Cypherpunks Organization." This LIST is the original basis of the Cypherpunks. From there, some people who have other interested parties in their locales have gone on to form local groups. This isn't like the Extropians who have the Extropy Institute officially behind them.
1. User sends mail w/ 'subscribe' in the body.
2. The mailer responds w/ a numbered header.
3. The user is requied to copy the message from #2 completely and to append 'agree'.
4. The user is then added to the list.
Why bother?
While it is true that some of you may see this as trivial but if you really want to keep CypherPunks an open forum and this list private (ensuring that they are seen as seperate entities) it is critical that this is made at every oppportunity.
What is the "CypherPunks" you are refering to if not this list? All mailing lists are, by the very nature, semi-private forums. You have to ask to get on them. If someone is disruptive, I see no reason they should not be asked to leave. Of course, the idiot in question isn't even on the list anymore. If you aren't the list, the list shouldn't accept your postings and mail them to members. I see no reason why non-members of the list should be able to mailbomb us all by sending to the list address. (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) | Al Billings aka Grendel Grettisson | "You are, each one, a priest, | | mimir@u.washington.edu | Just for yourself." | | Sysop of The Sacred Grove (206)322-5450 | | | Admin for Troth-L, The Asatru E-Mail List | -Noble Drew Ali- | (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
On Sat, 27 Nov 1993, Jim choate wrote:
If this is truly a private list then you need to put more effort into being
clear that this is a indivudualy supported mail-list and is not officialy associated w/ CypherPunks. I would offer the following protocol:
"Officially" associated with Cypherpunks? I don't know about where you are but in most places in this country there is no "Official Cypherpunks Organization." This LIST is the original basis of the Cypherpunks. From there, some people who have other interested parties in their locales have gone on to form local groups. This isn't like the Extropians who have the Extropy Institute officially behind them.
1. User sends mail w/ 'subscribe' in the body.
2. The mailer responds w/ a numbered header.
3. The user is requied to copy the message from #2 completely and to append
'agree'.
4. The user is then added to the list.
Why bother?
While it is true that some of you may see this as trivial but if you really
want to keep CypherPunks an open forum and this list private (ensuring that
they are seen as seperate entities) it is critical that this is made at eve ry oppportunity.
What is the "CypherPunks" you are refering to if not this list? All mailing lists are, by the very nature, semi-private forums. You have to ask to get on them. If someone is disruptive, I see no reason they should not be asked to leave. Of course, the idiot in question isn't even on the list anymore. If you aren't the list, the list shouldn't accept your postings and mail them to members. I see no reason why non-members of the list should be able to mailbomb us all by sending to the list address.
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(* ) | Al Billings aka Grendel Grettisson | "You are, each one, a priest, | | mimir@u.washington.edu | Just for yourself." | | Sysop of The Sacred Grove (206)322-5450 | | | Admin for Troth-L, The Asatru E-Mail List | -Noble Drew Ali- | (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(* )
So what you are saying is that the group which recently formed here in Austin as the Austin chapter of the CypherPunks is in actuallity a fraud? If this is so then I would agree w/ you that there is no 'official' CypherPunks organization (course the existance of this list and the various user groups make a very strong oppositional argument to this position). But, if the local CypherPunk group is to be considered a serious entity w/ any kid of change in effecting legislation and public sentiment (closely related wouldn't you agree?) then some form of officialdom better be created quickly. Even if the individual groups are to have any effect on local politics then they have to band together and choose some commen forums and planks of discussion. Then again, perhaps I am mis-informed about the nature of the CypherPunks. It was my understanding they were here to help protect and guide users of cyberspace and provide some sense of security on an individual level. The presentation of the group in the electronic and print media has been one which fostered a sense of uniformity and cohesion among the various groups and individuals. I am shure I am not the only follower of the crypto scene who is new to c-punks and a little confused (a very bad thing for newbies to any kind of movement to be) about what is going on and why. You seem to miss the entire point that I am making. It is not that what you are doing is wrong or incorrect, it is simply that the reality is different from the actuality and I am simply saying that there has been very little effort to fix that. The reason to bother w/ a procedure (not necessarily the one I offered) is to make shure that eveyone is informed and knows what to expect as well as what is expected of them. To be taken seriously this has to be done as a primary goal. If you have no intention of 'doing' anything (writing code, writing letters to politicians, etc.) then by all means the structure(less) you have now is sufficient. However, there are people interested in this topic that both expect more and want to give more. These people will be put off by such handling. I agree with your position on the list PROVIDED that the subscriber is told that UP FRONT (which is not the case now). All I am saying is whatever method you choose to handle the list is fine as long as ALL NEW SUBSCRIBERS are advised of the situation. You can not assume that a user knows what is going on simply because they can manage to subscribe to it. Just be fair is what I am saying.
participants (3)
-
Al Billings -
Jim choate -
tcmay＠netcom.com