No Subject

Well, keeping in the spirit of the original message, I will reply
to it anonymously. Besides, what I am going to say probably won't
be popular.

>i'm glad ghio caught that message in his mailbox through careful screening
>so that it wouldn't go out to the newsgroups. I always thought the
>remailers were automated, but I guess in most case the operators are 
>screening all the stuff. this is good, because we don't need any more
>Detweiller junk out there (amazing how peaceful things are without him!!!)
>too bad if the message was forged, because it would be LOTS of fun to
>EXPOSE THE BASTARD!!! (insert evil smirk here)

Did anyone else shudder when they read this? All I can say is that I am
*glad* this person does not run a remailer (although, if I were really 
paranoid, I might speculate that he does!).

As Tim May and Carl Kadie have pointed out on numerous occasions,
by systematically filtering mail the operator tends to lose the protection
of the legal status of "common carrier". I don't know if a remailer 
operator would be classified as such but others have proposed that
idea.

But just from a philosophical view, I think any remailer operators
hunting for Detweiler-grams in all their incoming mail are employing
a procedure that is antithetical to their entire commitment. Isn't
it just a *teensy* bit hypocritical? Is this how you are going to build
cyberspatial-wide confidence in the use of your remailers for their
dependability and secrecy? Isn't it just a *teensy* bit hypocritical
to yell to the world that ANONYMITY IS THE RIGHT OF MAN and have a little
whisper in small print, "unless you are an official enemy of the 
cypherpunks"?

Is it just me, or is this Detweiler thing blown *way* out of proportion?
He seems like a harmless crackpot occupying himself by banging on a 
keyboard. In fact, being consistently at the tmp@netcom.com even helps to 
filter him.

Cypherpunks, we believe in the philosophy that we are being oppressed
by numerous forces that seek to deprive us of our privacy-- big business,
the government, police, etc. But how can we claim to uphold the philosophy
of freedom of speech and privacy looking at our relationship with Detweiler?
Sometimes I think he was sent by God to test us.

What is it in the human psyche, rooted deep in our subconscious, that 
pushes us to *vengeance* against those who offend us? That pushes us to
want to *expose* them (as the person said above, "EXPOSE THE BASTARD!!!").
Do we have any consistent beliefs? How is that we, who are dedicated
to privacy, broadcast to everyone listening in a clear voice, that
"freedom of speech does not belong to people who offend us"? There is
a saying, "who will guard the guardians themselves"? Who will ensure
that those who advocate anonymity actually follow through, if they don't?

I personally advocate that the Detweiler-Detritus be allowed through
the remailers unaltered as a blaring advertisement to the entire world
of cyberspace that yes, we believe that anonymity is *sacred*, even more
so than we believe that Detweiler is the AntiChrist of the Cypherpunks.

"I detest what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to
say it." --Voltaire

"Freedom of speech does not end at the point that it offends; to the
contrary, that is where it begins" --Supreme Court justice (paraphrase)

That's all I have to say.

C'punks,

On Sun, 17 Jul 1994, Anonymous wrote:

> . . .
> >too bad if the message was forged, because it would be LOTS of fun to
> >EXPOSE THE BASTARD!!! (insert evil smirk here)
> 
> Did anyone else shudder when they read this? All I can say is that I am
> *glad* this person does not run a remailer (although, if I were really 
> paranoid, I might speculate that he does!).
> . . .

While you're speculating, care to guess who may have written the message 
which offended you?  Note the style, and think, "multiple personality 
disorder."  Did a light go on?


 S a n d y

Lawrence Detweiler, posting anonymously, said:
>i'm glad ghio caught that message in his mailbox through careful screening
>so that it wouldn't go out to the newsgroups. I always thought the
>remailers were automated, but I guess in most case the operators are 
>screening all the stuff. this is good, because we don't need any more
>Detweiller junk out there (amazing how peaceful things are without him!!!)
>too bad if the message was forged, because it would be LOTS of fun to
>EXPOSE THE BASTARD!!! (insert evil smirk here)

I've been off the list for a bit, so I can only guess this relates
to a discussion of the latest CRAM spam.  Detweiler watchers, train
your sights on "nym@netcom.com (Sue D. Nym)", who fairly recently
showed up on Usenet sporting all the usual stigmata.

My take on the Singularity is that it will commence when the
Detweiler cycle devolves to zero length, so that he simultaneously
is obtaining and being booted from accounts on all service providers.
Pretty incomprehensible, eh?

   Eli   ebrandt@hmc.edu

> I've been off the list for a bit, so I can only guess this relates
> to a discussion of the latest CRAM spam.  Detweiler watchers, train
> your sights on "nym@netcom.com (Sue D. Nym)", who fairly recently
> showed up on Usenet sporting all the usual stigmata.

>    Eli   ebrandt@hmc.edu

Thanks, Eli! I just checked here on Netcom to see if this "nym"
personna is posting from the Denver POP. Sure enough, it is.

Here's the result. A lot of activity, all from Denver. I wonder why
Netcom, who suspended his account for intense abuse, has given him a
new account?

{Netcom:8} {Netcom:8} fin nym
Login       Name              TTY Idle    When    Where
nym      Sue D. Nym                < .  .  .  . >
nym      Sue D. Nym            r1  <Jul 11 11:03> NETCOM-den2.netc    
nym      Sue D. Nym            pb  <Jul 16 14:03> NETCOM-den1.netc    
nym      Sue D. Nym            r8  <Jul 15 07:49> NETCOM-den2.netc    
nym      Sue D. Nym            pf  <Jul 14 22:16> NETCOM-den2.netc    
nym      Sue D. Nym            pa  <Jul 16 08:59> NETCOM-den1.netc    
nym      Sue D. Nym            rd  <Jul 14 07:42> NETCOM-den1.netc    
nym      Sue D. Nym            q3  <Jul 15 19:36> NETCOM-den2.netc    
nym      Sue D. Nym                < .  .  .  . >
nym      Sue D. Nym            t0  <Jul 14 20:00> NETCOM-den2.netc    
nym      Sue D. Nym            rb  <Jul 14 19:12> NETCOM-den2.netc    
nym      Sue D. Nym            re  <Jul 15 19:49> NETCOM-den2.netc    
nym      Sue D. Nym            qa  <Jul 17 08:39> NETCOM-den1.netc    
nym      Sue D. Nym            tc  <Jul 17 14:21> NETCOM-den2.netc    
{Netcom:9} 



-- 
..........................................................................
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: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Timothy C. May says:
> Here's the result. A lot of activity, all from Denver. I wonder why
> Netcom, who suspended his account for intense abuse, has given him a
> new account?

Why assume that they know who he is?

I'm not disturbed by this, actually. The only way to stop it would be
for Netcom to demand to see people's national ID papers before giving
them an account. Do any of us want that sort of world?

Perry