Siegel and Lewis

I just got off the phone with Peter Lewis, reporter for the New
York Times. He is unaware of any grand consipracy to regulate the Net,
but then again if there was one, I don't think they'd tell him.

   His piece that ran Saturday was badly mangled by the editorial
process, especially since it ran on page one. Those articles get to be
mangled by a whole new set of people who otherwise wouldn't get to
touch it. I think Lewis has basically good intentions, and does do his
homework before writing a story.

   Yecchh. Now I know why I don't rely on daily newspapers for my news
(the Internet keeps me up on the fast-breaking stuff, and the
Economist fills me in on the rest). The fact that most people rely
papers and the even worse TV news does not bode well.

   Martha Siegel is just fucked up enough that she will probably push
for legislation regulating the nets. Congress is just fucked up that
they might pass it.

Raph

>    Martha Siegel is just fucked up enough that she will probably push
> for legislation regulating the nets. Congress is just fucked up that
> they might pass it.

   And if they do I will make it a definate point to do all I can to 
emigrate to the UK, the Netherlands, or somewhere else.

   This country is increasingly becoming a police state, and I've got too 
many years of life left to just passively deal with it.

-jon
( --------[ Jonathan D. Cooper ]--------[ entropy@intnet.net ]-------- )
( PGP 2.6.2 keyprint: 31 50 8F 82 B9 79 ED C4  5B 12 A0 35 E0 9B C0 01 )
( home page: http://taz.hyperreal.com/~entropy/ ]---[ Key-ID: 4082CCB5 )

On Tue, 3 Jan 1995, Jonathan Cooper wrote:

> >    Martha Siegel is just fucked up enough that she will probably push
> > for legislation regulating the nets. Congress is just fucked up that
> > they might pass it.
> 
>    And if they do I will make it a definate point to do all I can to 
> emigrate to the UK, the Netherlands, or somewhere else.
> 
>    This country is increasingly becoming a police state, and I've got too 
> many years of life left to just passively deal with it.

uhm Jon, it seems that emigrating would be passively dealing with it, 
kinda contradicting your statement that you re too young to just 
passively deal with it.


i want to know everything          http://www.mcs.com/~nesta/home.html
i want to be everywhere                     Nesta's Home Page        
i want to fuck everyone in the world               &
i want to do something that matters         /-/ a s t e zine

On Tue, 3 Jan 1995, Jonathan Cooper wrote:

> >    Martha Siegel is just fucked up enough that she will probably push
> > for legislation regulating the nets. Congress is just fucked up that
> > they might pass it.
> 
>    And if they do I will make it a definate point to do all I can to 
> emigrate to the UK, the Netherlands, or somewhere else.
> 
>    This country is increasingly becoming a police state, and I've got too 
> many years of life left to just passively deal with it.

As I understand it, the government owns a portion of the internet. What 
they want to regulate about that is their business. What I want to know 
is how can they regulate what private business and citizen's do with 
there Fiber Optic's, ISDN lines, telephone lines, and computers. If the 
government was to ban anything on the net, it would shurly seem to me to 
be in violation of the first ammenment. Things like pirated software, 
being illegal already, is one thing, but our mail, conversations, ect. is 
diffrent. 

	Does anyone have any information on what grouds Seigel and Lewis 
plan to use for legislation? If they do pass laws regulating the 'net I 
hope someone comes up with a no-spamming law, then I am getting a ticket 
on Jon Coopers plane out of the country. 

						Groove on Dude
						Michael Conlen

Michael Conlen says:
> As I understand it, the government owns a portion of the internet.

Nope. Sorry. They don't.

> 	Does anyone have any information on what grouds Seigel and Lewis 
> plan to use for legislation?

Peter Lewis is a reporter, and to my knowledge has no plans to lose
his job by lobbying for legislation. I am unaware of what his opinions
on this topic might be. My only beef with him is that his stories tend
to be full of inaccuracies. This mornings, for instance, gave the
impression that there are no unpatented algorithms available to do
high-quality compression -- when of course, there are many.

Perry

> As I understand it, the government owns a portion of the internet. What 

   Yes.  And through my work's upcoming link, so will they.  So what?

> they want to regulate about that is their business. What I want to know

   On their own networks, surely.
 
> is how can they regulate what private business and citizen's do with 
> there Fiber Optic's, ISDN lines, telephone lines, and computers. If the

   They already do - look at the regulations on telcos, power companies, 
water companies, cellular/paging companies, lawyers, doctors, etc. 
 
> government was to ban anything on the net, it would shurly seem to me to 
> be in violation of the first ammenment. Things like pirated software, 

   An interesting point.  Any legal views from someone more versed in the 
law than I?

-jon
( --------[ Jonathan D. Cooper ]--------[ entropy@intnet.net ]-------- )
( PGP 2.6.2 keyprint: 31 50 8F 82 B9 79 ED C4  5B 12 A0 35 E0 9B C0 01 )
( home page: http://taz.hyperreal.com/~entropy/ ]---[ Key-ID: 4082CCB5 )

On Wed, 4 Jan 1995, Jonathan Cooper wrote:

> > is how can they regulate what private business and citizen's do with 
> > there Fiber Optic's, ISDN lines, telephone lines, and computers. If the
> 
>    They already do - look at the regulations on telcos, power companies, 
> water companies, cellular/paging companies, lawyers, doctors, etc. 

A big difference between the 'net and some of the above, is that the net 
has been around in a very large presence (internatonaly) before the laws 
are being introduced, where as paging and cellular service didnt exist. 
As far as lawyers and doctors and lawyers, one of the big things the 
government does is protect agianst quacks. Not to many people are going to 
argue with this. The government wants to protect us from speech in the 
case of the 'net, well there are quite a few people who are going to 
stand up for their first amenment rights. 

If you want your own communication service, you can buy it. weather you 
use fiber based WAN's or go straight for satalite service, used by 
companies such as Holiday Inn, or Circuit City. You can exchange any 
information you want. 

I think the important thing to remember is that net access is not a 
right. My service provider has the right to give service to whom they 
please, as long as race, sex, or creed are not deciding factors. 

What goes across .gov and .mil computers is one thing, however what 
commes across sprintlink's computers to my service proveder to my 
computer is up to sprintlink, Intnet.net and myself. I dont care to read 
racist comments, so I dont view them. If I want to download nudie gifs, 
its my business, and right as stated under the First Amenment.

Why is it that so many cypherpunks like the economist?

I learned recently that Eric is a big fan. So am I. You're certainly 
not the first other cypherpunk to mention this. Weird. I mean, it's
not exactly a radical publication... it just gets its *&#$*#$ facts
right. Probably this is it.

Doug

On Wed, 4 Jan 1995, Doug Barnes wrote:

> 
> Why is it that so many cypherpunks like the economist?
> 
> I learned recently that Eric is a big fan. So am I. You're certainly 
> not the first other cypherpunk to mention this. Weird. I mean, it's
> not exactly a radical publication... it just gets its *&#$*#$ facts
> right. Probably this is it.
> 
> Doug
> 

The reason is, and I do not presume to speak for other individuals on 
this list, the Economist looks at the world from an independent (i.e. not 
owned by one of the major publishing houses, if I'm not mistaken) point 
of view, and is not afraid to pursue different analysis of a topic.

I will also venture that the closest that we have in the US is Forbes.

Dan

Guess I'm worse than Siegel & Lewis now, huh?

On Fri, 6 Jan 1995, Dan Harmon wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 1995, Doug Barnes wrote:
> > Why is it that so many cypherpunks like the economist?
> > I learned recently that Eric is a big fan. So am I. You're certainly 
> > not the first other cypherpunk to mention this. Weird. I mean, it's
> > not exactly a radical publication... it just gets its *&#$*#$ facts
> > right. Probably this is it.
> > Doug
> The reason is, and I do not presume to speak for other individuals on 
> this list, the Economist looks at the world from an independent (i.e. not 
> owned by one of the major publishing houses, if I'm not mistaken) point 
> of view, and is not afraid to pursue different analysis of a topic.
> 
> I will also venture that the closest that we have in the US is Forbes.
> 
> Dan
>   
>

On Wed, 4 Jan 1995, Doug Barnes wrote:

> Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 07:42:57 -0600 (CST)
> From: Doug Barnes <db@Tadpole.COM>
> To: Raph Levien <raph@netcom.com>
> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: Siegel and Lewis
> 
> 
> Why is it that so many cypherpunks like the economist?
> 
> I learned recently that Eric is a big fan. So am I. You're certainly 
> not the first other cypherpunk to mention this. Weird. I mean, it's
> not exactly a radical publication... it just gets its *&#$*#$ facts
> right. Probably this is it.

I am also a fan.

I tend to focus on the subject matter economist prints.  I just find it 
more on target than most if not all of the major U.S. media sources.

> 
> Doug
> 
> 

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

> I tend to focus on the subject matter economist prints.  I just find it 
> more on target than most if not all of the major U.S. media sources.

   I find _Reason_ quite excellent as well.

-jon

( --------[ Jonathan D. Cooper ]--------[ entropy@intnet.net ]-------- )
( PGP 2.6.2 keyprint: 31 50 8F 82 B9 79 ED C4  5B 12 A0 35 E0 9B C0 01 )
( home page: http://taz.hyperreal.com/~entropy/ ]---[ Key-ID: 4082CCB5 )

Raph Levien says:
>    I just got off the phone with Peter Lewis, reporter for the New
> York Times. He is unaware of any grand consipracy to regulate the Net,
> but then again if there was one, I don't think they'd tell him.

I doubt that there is one.

>    Martha Siegel is just fucked up enough that she will probably push
> for legislation regulating the nets. Congress is just fucked up that
> they might pass it.

Peter should take some responsibility for perpetuating Mr. Canter and
Ms. Siegel. He failed, in my opinion, to properly reflect the
situation in his articles about it in The Times. In particular, he did
very little to convey that the two are de fact disbarred attorneys who
had played the same games in "real space" that they had in Cyberspace
and had been dragged through the coals by the Florida bar association
for it because to almost anyone what they had been doing was a gross
ethical violation.

He also made it seem as though internet users were opposed to
advertising, when, of course, advertising has been on the net for many
many years, and newsgroups like comp.newprod exist to publish nothing
but ads. He didn't properly convey that the defect in their behavior
had been the jamming of other people's communications with their ads,
rather than the act of advertising per se -- much like someone
standing up during a town meeting on some local matter and starting to
declaim loudly not on the purpose of the meeting but instead about how
great their legal services were.

Peter also did little to interview anyone with substantial standing in
the internet community about what C&S were doing -- a quote or two
from an old net hand like a Gene Spafford or someone of that ilk might
have been valuable. As it was, he didn't produce much to counter the
viewpoint that they were the victims rather than the victimizers.

I think it is only because the "paper of record" published articles
that made them look like their point of view had any merit at all that
they managed to survive this long. As it is, the Tennessee Bar is
looking in to whether they have committed any new ethical
violations. I'd say, of course, that they had...

Perry