Unicorn vs. tmp@netcom

Recently Black Unicorn posted that he had sued tmp@netcom, and settled
out of court.  A couple of messages followed which were supportive of
his action.  The text below is a rebuke to Unicorn.  I post it in the
hope that it will provide dimension to the debate.

To Black Unicorn:

Once upon a time, two strangers found a dog.  Alice said, "That's my dog:
I can clearly tell by its markings".  Bob said, "No, I'm afraid you're
mistaken.  See his ears pick up when I call his name".  And so the debate
continued, until a third person, Sol, arrived.  On hearing the pleadings
of Bob and Alice, Sol told them, "Stand 10 meters apart and put the dog
between you".  Sol the scared the dog with a quick movement and a shout,
and the dog ran to its true master.

Likewise, when you were tested recently by net abuse, you went for
relief to your master, the government.  This is what distinguishes you
from the rest of us.  We might react against the abuse (or we might
not), but I think that none of us - or at least a very few - would have
gone to court for relief.

       "I spoke to a Federal Court of Appeals Judge who I have known for
        a number of years to try and poke some holes in the suit on
        substantive merits."

Despite your protestation, "I also don't like to be a bully", it seems
to me that your pursuit of this case was predicated on your ability to
be a bully and an insider.  Like your colleagues Cantor and Seigel, you
emitted flamebait and then pretended offense at the inevitable flames.
You taunted tmp@netcom about his illness, reminding him at least three
times in one message to take his medicine.  Nice behaviour for a person
who supposedly believes in privacy.  It seems to me that you sized up
tmp@netcom as a person who could not fight back due to his illness, and
then you provoked him in order to establish grounds for your suit.  I
believe that your case, which is apparently based upon testimony from
your friends, could not have succeeded in court.  But it didn't have to,
did it?  You only had to find someone who was ill, and then kick him
while he was down.

Was it Rousseau who said, "First, we kill all the lawyers"?  The cost of
a lawsuit in the U.S. today can easily be over $100,000.  The cost of a
contract murder is said to be $10,000-$50,000.  Consider the economics.

I think there is a role to be played by lawyers in the future of the
net. The net does not like litigation, because it interferes with the
free flow of information.  But it does like protocols, which are seen to
enhance the flow of information.  Lawyers, by their training and
practice, are especially good at formulating workable protocols.  If we
had a protocol governing the use of network resources by sick or abusive
users, your conflict with tmp@netcom might not have transpired, or else
a solution might have been easily achieved.  Conflicts like this are
resulting in conversion of newsgroups on Usenet to moderated groups - a
very unfortunate trend in my opinion, as Usenet does not provide for the
removal of moderators.  Here is a proper outlet for legal talent, not in
self-serving time-wasting resource-absorbing litigation.

--
Alex Brock

> Was it Rousseau who said, "First, we kill all the lawyers"?

No.  This was a fictional criminal in Shakespeare (and the Bard makes it
clear it is not his opinion, but the opinion of an idiot; Shakespeare is
frequently quoted out of context on that one, as if he agreed with the
sentiment).  Other's may find it witty or stupid, for one reason or
another, of course (YMMV).
-- 
Stanton McCandlish * mech@eff.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist
F O R   M O R E   I N F O,    E - M A I L    T O:     I N F O @ E F F . O R G 
O  P  E  N    P  L  A  T  F  O  R  M     O  N  L  I  N  E    R  I  G  H  T  S
V  I   R   T   U   A   L   C  U   L   T   U   R   E      C  R   Y   P   T   O

Cyber City says:
> Likewise, when you were tested recently by net abuse, you went for
> relief to your master, the government.  This is what distinguishes you
> from the rest of us.

I would say that this is foolish. He went to the legal system rather
than engaging in vigilatism.

I myself am an anarchist. However, absent privately operated courts
and private enforcement systems for me to bring suit under, I conduct
my legal affairs via the only available court system. (To the extent
that is possible I include language about arbitration in my contracts
so that problems can be handled in what passes for a private court
system today -- binding arbitration -- but this is not always
feasable.)

> We might react against the abuse (or we might not), but I think that
> none of us - or at least a very few - would have gone to court for
> relief.

Thats because few of us would have a large amount at stake. "Black
Unicorn" claimed to have a large sum of money at risk because of the
stupidity in question. If one has a lot of money at risk one becomes
defensive of it. Thats the only way one ends up keeping one's money.
People who don't defend their money soon lose all of it. There is
nothing dishonorable about going to court to defend one's property and
capital. I might have found "Black Unicorn"s actions distasteful had
he been going to court claiming something I find distasteful, but I
see nothing wrong with suits such as the one he threatened.

> Was it Rousseau who said, "First, we kill all the lawyers"?

No, my ignorant friend, it was Shakespeare.

> The cost of a lawsuit in the U.S. today can easily be over $100,000.
> The cost of a contract murder is said to be $10,000-$50,000.
> Consider the economics.

The cost of a lawsuit can be anything from $20 to millions of dollars.
It all depends on what the lawsuit is about and who is running it,
doesn't it?  The cost of a murder is irrelevant to the discussion.
Indeed, so is the cost of a lawsuit. "Black Unicorn" was not in a
position to produce a less expensive court system to sue in.

Should he have censored himself to avoid being illegitimately attacked
by Detweiler? Should he have permitted his livelyhood to be threatened
on the premise that Detweiler can't afford a lawyer? "Black Unicorn"
had few reasonable choices in the matter and took what appears, to me,
to be a quite reasonable approach.

Perry

Well there is a distinction to be made between the law, and the
government.  Today, the government claims a (virtual) monopoly on the
law*.  Thus resort to the law today must almost always also be a
resort to governemt.  So, we cannot tell from outside if Unicorn's
'master' is government, or law.  Perhaps we should ask him?

  On the other hand, I certainly agree that 'kicking folks when they
are down' is not nice.  Especially if it is done in a premeditated
manner.  But you didn't sugest that -- did you?

  Btw, is cyber1@io.org by any chance another nym for tmp@netcom.com?

  * Footnote: Arbitration services are almost a seperate law, but
generaly their 'teeth' come ultimately from government monopoly on
force.  It is posible to imagin arbitration services with shaper
teeth.

  I supose that criminal organizations which chalange the government's
monopoly on force could provide an example of alternative law.  Hmm.
Didn't you mention something about that kind of law being cheaper to
access?

j'

Cyber City scripsit
> 
> Recently Black Unicorn posted that he had sued tmp@netcom, and settled
> out of court.  A couple of messages followed which were supportive of
> his action.  The text below is a rebuke to Unicorn.  I post it in the
> hope that it will provide dimension to the debate.
> 
> To Black Unicorn:
> 

[Dog story clipped]

> 
> Likewise, when you were tested recently by net abuse, you went for
> relief to your master, the government.  This is what distinguishes you
> from the rest of us.

I find it interesting that your rebuke is based mostly on your own 
personal reluctance to use the courts.  Who exactly do you speak of to when 
you refer to "the rest of us."

You propose that I resort next time to what.... arbitration?

> We might react against the abuse (or we might
> not), but I think that none of us - or at least a very few - would have
> gone to court for relief.

You seem to think it was merely the post that caused me to resort to the 
courts.  It was not.  Had it remained in Usenet I never would have cared 
much.

>        "I spoke to a Federal Court of Appeals Judge who I have known for
>         a number of years to try and poke some holes in the suit on
>         substantive merits."
> 
> Despite your protestation, "I also don't like to be a bully", it seems
> to me that your pursuit of this case was predicated on your ability to
> be a bully and an insider. 

This is often the case with lawsuit and any human endeavor.  I'm sorry 
everyone isn't on equal ground in the world.  I personally prefer the 
ability to resort to a civil system of litigation than to have some 
highly institutionalized, standardized, process that could only be 
provided by big government.  At what price equality?

> Like your colleagues Cantor and Seigel, you
> emitted flamebait and then pretended offense at the inevitable flames.

Cantor and Seigel?  Please.  Again, even if one asks to be rebuked, this 
is no excuse for defamation.

> You taunted tmp@netcom about his illness, reminding him at least three
> times in one message to take his medicine.  Nice behaviour for a person
> who supposedly believes in privacy.  It seems to me that you sized up
> tmp@netcom as a person who could not fight back due to his illness, and
> then you provoked him in order to establish grounds for your suit.

I never knew him to be truly ill.  The "please keep up with your 
medication" comments are common in Usenet and hardly indictive of any 
factual belief.  If indeed he is on medication it is news to me, and you 
are the individual who has compromised his privacy.

It would be an easy matter for me to expose his identity, his work, his 
finances, I have and will not.

> I
> believe that your case, which is apparently based upon testimony from
> your friends, could not have succeeded in court.  But it didn't have to,
> did it?  You only had to find someone who was ill, and then kick him
> while he was down.

Your wrong on the first count, right on the second, and as I said before, 
I never had a basis to make the judgement that you outline in the third.

> Was it Rousseau who said, "First, we kill all the lawyers"? 

No, it is a Shakesphere quote from Henry VI, (Part 2).  This oft 
misquoted tidbit is taken out of context to be a serious suggestion.  In 
fact the character who utters it is a Nilhilist intended to be laughed at 
for his impractical and poorly thought out theories.  Note that this 
quote comes right after a similar humor:

"I will make it a felony to drink small beer."

> The cost of
> a lawsuit in the U.S. today can easily be over $100,000.  The cost of a
> contract murder is said to be $10,000-$50,000.  Consider the economics.

What does this have to do with my suit?

> I think there is a role to be played by lawyers in the future of the
> net. The net does not like litigation, because it interferes with the
> free flow of information. 

Where the free flow of information damages, it is an easy policy to 
insure ones self with flawless, no cost, total liability insurance.  It's 
called a secure anonymous remailer.

> But it does like protocols, which are seen to
> enhance the flow of information.  Lawyers, by their training and
> practice, are especially good at formulating workable protocols.  If we
> had a protocol governing the use of network resources by sick or abusive
> users, your conflict with tmp@netcom might not have transpired, or else
> a solution might have been easily achieved.

I concur, and I outlined said protocol.  I pointed to Julf.  In the 
absence of such protocol I will act to protect my interests by what 
means are available.


[Time wasteing litigation comment deleted]

I don't find it was a waste of my time or my effort.

> 
> --
> Alex Brock
> 


-uni- (Dark)

-- 
073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa    -    wichtig!

<In mail Black Unicorn said:>
> It would be an easy matter for me to expose his identity, his work, his 
> finances, I have and will not.

  Not that I would suggest anyone to do this, but I do wonder if the
  information obtained for the court case is public knowlege or is it
  in a 'sealed' file?  Knowing nothing of law I haven't a clue, but if
  it is public information then another cypherpunk might find it an
  equally easy matter to expose the id, work, finances, etc of the
  tmp@netcom.com person.

  Not that I would suggest doing this.

  Jim

-- 
 Tantalus Inc.          Jim Sewell      Amateur Radio: KD4CKQ
 P.O. Box 2310          Programmer           Internet: jims@mpgn.com
 Key West, FL 33045     C-Unix-PC          Compu$erve: 71061,1027
 (305)293-8100                            PGP via email on request. 
 1K-bit Fingerprint: 8E 14 68 90 37 87 EF B3  C4 CF CD 9A 3E F9 4A 73

Cyber City writes:
 > To Black Unicorn:
 > 
 > Once upon a time, two strangers found a dog...
 > 
 > Likewise, when you were tested recently by net abuse, you went for
 > relief to your master, the government.  

I find this analogy pretty thin...

 > This is what distinguishes you from the rest of us. 

"Us"?

 > We might react against the abuse (or we might not), but I think
 > that none of us - or at least a very few - would have gone to court
 > for relief. 

I appreciate your input, but please do not presume to speak for me.

 > Despite your protestation, "I also don't like to be a bully", it seems
 > to me that your pursuit of this case was predicated on your ability to
 > be a bully and an insider.

An "insider", because he happens to know a judge?  Sorry, but
knowledge of the law is not some sort of exclusive privilege.

 > Like your colleagues Cantor and Seigel

!!!

 > You only had to find someone who was ill, and then kick him
 > while he was down.

It has never been demonstrated to my satisfaction that tmp@netcom.com
is ill, and while the suggestion has been made frequently I don't
think we can use the supposition to accuse Mr. Unicorn of "kicking" a
sick person.  This is a serious twisting of the facts.

 > Was it Rousseau who said, "First, we kill all the lawyers"?  

No; that's the most bizarre misattribution I've seen in a while...

 > The cost of a lawsuit in the U.S. today can easily be over
 > $100,000.

Indeed; it might be $10,000,000!!!  Or, of course, it might be
nothing, and it might be that someone victimized by a frivolous
lawsuit can sue to recover costs.

 > The cost of a contract murder is said to be $10,000-$50,000.
 > Consider the economics. 

I'm pretty quickly losing track of this train of thought.  Are you
suggesting that Mr. Unicorn should have consulted a mafioso instead of
a judge?

 > I think there is a role to be played by lawyers in the future of the
 > net. The net does not like litigation, because it interferes with the
 > free flow of information.

This statement makes no sense.  Is it not obvious that litigation need
have nothing whatsoever to do with the free flow of information?

--
| GOOD TIME FOR MOVIE - GOING ||| Mike McNally <m5@tivoli.com>       |
| TAKE TWA TO CAIRO.          ||| Tivoli Systems, Austin, TX:        |
|     (actual fortune cookie) ||| "Like A Little Bit of Semi-Heaven" |