Detweiler blocking

I must admit to a certain amount of amazement to the almost universal
consensus I have seen in this forum regarding censoring Detweiler's (or
whomever's) Usenet postings. I believe in the remailer concept and I
believe in fighting the authoritarian traceability standard that the
Internet is designed around. As Xenon and others have mentioned, there
are numerous ways for anyone to get around any kind of source-level
filtering you might care to implement, and thus as remailer operators
heading down this path, you will be put in the position of the
proverbial dutch boy with a finger in the dike.

The type of privacy that most of us as cypherpunks think is important
and are trying to provide will necessarily leave us open to attacks
such as Detweiler's. But I think privacy is more important than one
more off-topic post in a random newsgroup. And if someone receives
mail they don't like or don't appreciate--delete it! This medium of
electronic communication is not nearly as dangerous as the current
postal system, which allows you to send real mailbombs--and the postal
system does NOT require return addresses. Who are these uptight
schmucks writing to root and postmaster about Detweiler posts? Why on
earth have they been allowed to get away with it! This is ridiculous.

I think this is the battle that we must fight. The digital convergence
is happening now, and unfortunately with the current authoritarian
Internet model, Clipper/Capstone/Tesserae and all that
nonsense--things arent't looking good for our side. Therefore, I think
even more we have to stand on principle to fight this thing. (and yes,
I fully intend to have my remailer running soon--I'm not just talking).

Someone could send me mail now containing kiddy porn (most likely a
postal inspector--they seem to be the only markey for the stuff) with
no return address--should I write to the root@whitehouse.org as the
ultimate arbiter since the postal service has delivered me this mail?
If someone delivers mail through my remailer (which will ONLY support
PGP encrypted mail) how am I responsible? 

Benjamin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
analyst@netcom.com
mail pgp-public-keys@io.com for PGP key

Benjamin McLemore says:
> I must admit to a certain amount of amazement to the almost universal
> consensus I have seen in this forum regarding censoring Detweiler's (or
> whomever's) Usenet postings.

No one has proposed censoring his Usenet postings. What people have
proposed is that they deny him the use of the remailers that they set
up on their hardware. This is very different. Its the difference
between saying "Detweiler can't live" and "Detweiler can't live IN MY
LIVING ROOM". Its the difference between saying "I advocate the right
of people to discuss any topic they want" and saying "I adovacate the
right of people to discuss any topic they want IN MY BEDROOM AT FOUR
AM WHILE I'M TRYING TO SLEEP."

I am constantly suprised that this simple distinction is so hard for
people to understand. I advocate, for instance, that Nazis should have
free speech, but I would never hand them money to buy printing
presses, nor would I patronize newsstands that carry their
publications. Presumably this is "censorship" too.

I see nothing wrong with remailer operators taking steps to prevent
Detweiler from using their equipment against their will. This is not
censorship. Mr. Detweiler is still free to use Usenet any way he sees
fit. It is simply the act of saying "Mr. Detweiler can't use MY
REMAILER any way he sees fit."


Perry

On Wed, 16 Feb 1994, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> 
> I see nothing wrong with remailer operators taking steps to prevent
> Detweiler from using their equipment against their will. This is not
> censorship. Mr. Detweiler is still free to use Usenet any way he sees
> fit. It is simply the act of saying "Mr. Detweiler can't use MY
> REMAILER any way he sees fit."

Actually, `their' is a closer word for it than `Mr' is.  =o
                   _  .  _ ___ _  .  _
===-|)/\\/|V|/\/\ (_)/_\|_|\_/(_)/_\|_| Stop by for an excursion into the-===
===-|)||| | |\/\/  mud.crl.com 8888 (_) Virtual Bay Area!                -===

> 
> 
> Benjamin McLemore says:
> > I must admit to a certain amount of amazement to the almost universal
> > consensus I have seen in this forum regarding censoring Detweiler's (or
> > whomever's) Usenet postings.
> 
> No one has proposed censoring his Usenet postings. What people have
> proposed is that they deny him the use of the remailers that they set
> up on their hardware. This is very different. 

[deleted]
> 
> I see nothing wrong with remailer operators taking steps to prevent
> Detweiler from using their equipment against their will. This is not
> censorship. Mr. Detweiler is still free to use Usenet any way he sees
> fit. It is simply the act of saying "Mr. Detweiler can't use MY
> REMAILER any way he sees fit."
> Perry

Sorry for the typo, of course I meant censoring Detweiler's Usenet
postings vis a vis the remailer network. I don't even want to know who
is sending messages through my remailer and they beter be encrypted so
that I can't know--this is the essence of the privacy that I think
remailers should provide and it is how I think we have to fight the
current authoritarian model. Yes, Detweiler wants the remailer's shut
down and some type og Big Brother/retina scanning/verification
approach so that he can be sure we're not al the same person. As such,
he is an enemy of what we stand for. And yet, he can use the
technologies we are developing just as well--so can the rest of the
poeple who are against our agenda and there is no way we could
distribute filter lists fast enough to keep them all out (especially
with port 25).

My point is--what harm have Detweiler's posts through the remailer's
done? I do not accept that they were really even harm--anybody reading
unmoderated Usenet newsgroups is wading through far more drivel on a
daily basis then the Perversion can manage to generate. It is
challenging this notion that they were harmful (and I am not doubting
that some net.czars--although hopefully not Netcom--would find them
so) that I am trying to do. 

WE must have privacy for everyone--even Detweiler. I agree with Perry
that Detweiler's right to sin ends when he uses my property, but I
only plan to use (and soon run) remailers where the text is encrypted
anyway. I certainly do not plan to filter messages based on a content
I can't even read. Thus, by design I wouldn't be able to filter him or
any other fools he might motivate to his irrational cause.

As to kiddie porn, what is my legal liability if all that passes
through my system is PGP-encrypted bits. Someone else will have to
open the envelope (I assume that the postal inspectors aren't
arresting all the postal workers in the chain of delivery of the crap
they are sending to BBS operators...)--I don't plan to be able to.

Benjamin

--
analyst@netcom.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Wed, 16 Feb 1994, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

>
> I see nothing wrong with remailer operators taking steps to prevent
> Detweiler from using their equipment against their will. This is not
> censorship. Mr. Detweiler is still free to use Usenet any way he sees
> fit. It is simply the act of saying "Mr. Detweiler can't use MY
> REMAILER any way he sees fit."
>
In a society where anonymity were commonly available, I would agree withyou, but
sadly we do not live in such a society.  As cypherpunks we are trying to rectify
this, to make anonymity available for _all_, pricks like Detweiler included.  I 
think that it sets a bad precedent to boot him off of our private remailers 
while our remailers are still all that's out there.  When public remailing is a 
reality, we can rightly do as we see fit with our private remailers without 
risking jeopardizing the future of anonymity rights on the net as a whole.
Understand of course, that I am not saying that you have no right to boot 
Detweiler...I am merely pointing out that I think it would set a dangerous 
precedent, and would in the long run be detrimental to all we are working for.

				Jim Wise
				wisej@acf4.nyu.edu
				jaw7254@acfcluster.nyu.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3

iQCVAgUBLWK7WDS8O1DgkhNpAQHbSQP+KHhrjXYGH6+45dJ/J7YvGVohLMDPs8Jk
oHE9dUsN3Dz5kNcnU93RkEiqI25QuaE/Yp8aQJnCEFO3xatrp2O8AzmowA458adg
I+lzRHARl2bVvFcVnMjB3iFDYVs7q37Qb2y6dTokPrnN4YxarqXUUabfgKsD9vrt
XhsDmxXzit4=
=XeRd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

wisej says:
> In a society where anonymity were commonly available, I would agree
> with you, but sadly we do not live in such a society.  As
> cypherpunks we are trying to rectify this, to make anonymity
> available for _all_, pricks like Detweiler included.

My goal is not to make anonymity available for all. My goal is to keep
it LEGAL for all. Mr. Detweiler and the rest can pay for their
anonymity on their own dime -- I give my services to people I like and
people who pay me, not to anyone and everyone. Just because I feel the
American Nazi Party should be legal does not give me the personal urge
to give them money.

Detweiler is indeed a prick. As such, I feel no obligation to make his
life easy. I see nothing wrong with individuals deciding who they wish
to give service to and who they don't. Just because I feel something
should be legal does not mean I wish to supply it. I think it should
be legal for Detweiler to be anonymous if he wishes. I see no
obligation for anyone who dislikes him to supply him with the
mechanisms to exercise his rights, however.

> I am merely pointing out that I think it would set a dangerous
> precedent, and would in the long run be detrimental to all we are
> working for.

I think the opposite. I believe that suicidally deciding to make his
life easy regardless of how much of a pain in the buttocks he is is
the bad precedent -- it gives people the wrong idea about what these
services are about. Julf kicked him off -- but to this day refuses to
confirm if it was really Detweiler using an12070. That is the sort of
ethical precedent I like -- Julf kept his word about anonymity but
refused to allow his dime to be used to fund further abuse. Its bad
precedent for people to feel muzzy headed about the distinction
between wanting something legal and wanting to supply it.

Perry

While I personally have no bitch with LD's posts (I just delete 99% of them)
it would seem that a service provider, like a restaurant, can say

  "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"

It's a free country - (or at least buyable) - the remailer operators should
have a right to deny service to anyone they care to.  If the person they
deny service to doesn't like it, they can use a different remailer.  Or
start their own remailer.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Wed, 16 Feb 1994, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

>
> My goal is not to make anonymity available for all. My goal is to keep
> it LEGAL for all. Mr. Detweiler and the rest can pay for their
> anonymity on their own dime -- I give my services to people I like and

But the best way to keep it legal is to keep it widely available, no questions 
asked...If each person is providing their own brand of anonymity, it sort of 
destroys the point, doesn't it?  After all, you just look to see whose remailing
style is being used.

				Jim Wise
				wisej@acf4.nyu.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3

iQCVAgUBLWMNKTS8O1DgkhNpAQHJXgQAxfwCMnwZOWJlVEInkiLAPsO9IrsiluwL
HLW+jLpBhNNqpneLdNrQIVgc/ZxNSwCda8fbcFR/gOHkY2oT/Ce8convXe8AxqPv
ZyGu+x0zzhytyoq+y61fXrxbgzt5tuO7DP+1zkEWYj8R/IQhUhyOkulg3rbrHU68
frG64Fw2apU=
=URGR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

wisej says:
> >
> > My goal is not to make anonymity available for all. My goal is to keep
> > it LEGAL for all. Mr. Detweiler and the rest can pay for their
> > anonymity on their own dime -- I give my services to people I like and
> 
> But the best way to keep it legal is to keep it widely available, no
> questions asked.

I see no reason to believe that the one follows from the other, but
even assuming that you were right, barring Detweiler does not
substantially reduce the set of people to whom services are available.

.pm