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.