Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News

On Thu, 14 Nov 1996, Sean Roach wrote:

> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 19:46:08 -0500
> From: Sean Roach <roach_s@alph.swosu.edu>
> To: aga <aga@dhp.com>, cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News 
> 
> >On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Mark M. wrote:
> 
> >> Mark
> >> - -- 
> >> finger -l for PGP key
> >> PGP encrypted mail prefered.
> 
> To which, at 08:42 AM 11/14/96 -0500, aga wrote:
> 
> >Why?  Are you a criminal?
> >What are you hiding behind your PGP?
> 
> Okay, I'll bite.  Where is it said that a person who wants h[is,er] privacy
> is a criminal?  Charlie McCarthy might have said that.
> 

It just "looks" that way on the net.  I do live-fucking, newsgroup
flooding, mailbombing, vote-tampering and defamation all legally,
and OPENLY on the InterNet.

The more you PGP, the worse you look.  Nobody reads your e-mail,
so stop being so paranoid.

-aga

So, you send all of your snail mail on post cards do you? No
sealed envelopes at all? Afterall you have nothing to hide, right?

Of course not, privacy isn't about being a criminal, its about being
private. It is not akin to anonymity, *perhaps* those who work
anonymously have `something to hide' (still doesn't necessarily make
them a criminal, however), I'll let someone else field that as I feel
that anonymity is rarely a good thing. 

Privacy, on the other hand, simply means that not everything I do is any
of your business and I would just as soon you not be tempted to even
bother trying to find out. 

Of course, if all of your personal mail (including financial statements
etc) is sent on post cards, then (while I think you would be crazy) I
will at least admit you are consistent. Else, I think you need to look
hard at the logic you are using.

cheers


On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, aga wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Nov 1996, Sean Roach wrote:
> 
> > Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 19:46:08 -0500
> > From: Sean Roach <roach_s@alph.swosu.edu>
> > To: aga <aga@dhp.com>, cypherpunks@toad.com
> > Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News 
> > 
> > >On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Mark M. wrote:
> > 
> > >> Mark
> > >> - -- 
> > >> finger -l for PGP key
> > >> PGP encrypted mail prefered.
> > 
> > To which, at 08:42 AM 11/14/96 -0500, aga wrote:
> > 
> > >Why?  Are you a criminal?
> > >What are you hiding behind your PGP?
> > 
> > Okay, I'll bite.  Where is it said that a person who wants h[is,er] privacy
> > is a criminal?  Charlie McCarthy might have said that.
> > 
> 
> It just "looks" that way on the net.  I do live-fucking, newsgroup
> flooding, mailbombing, vote-tampering and defamation all legally,
> and OPENLY on the InterNet.
> 
> The more you PGP, the worse you look.  Nobody reads your e-mail,
> so stop being so paranoid.
> 
> -aga
>

On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Dave Kinchlea wrote:

> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 15:18:12 -0800 (PST)
> From: Dave Kinchlea <security@kinch.ark.com>
> To: aga <aga@dhp.com>
> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News 
> 
> So, you send all of your snail mail on post cards do you? No
> sealed envelopes at all? Afterall you have nothing to hide, right?
> 

Irrelevant analogy; snail.mail and e-mail.  The former is in physical
form, and the latter usually never is.

> Of course not, privacy isn't about being a criminal, its about being
> private. It is not akin to anonymity, *perhaps* those who work
> anonymously have `something to hide' (still doesn't necessarily make
> them a criminal, however), 

Anonymity on the InterNet is a Constitutional right, and is the
sole supporter of freedom of speech.

> I'll let someone else field that as I feel
> that anonymity is rarely a good thing. 
> 

I disagree, anonymity is a good thing that will never
be questioned by anybody, but your PGP will, and it
is really not safe anyway.

> Privacy, on the other hand, simply means that not everything I do is any
> of your business and I would just as soon you not be tempted to even
> bother trying to find out. 
> 

If you do not send it to me by e-mail, I will never see it.
Why are you so paranoid that someone is reading your e-mail?
I never do anything criminal, so I could give a shit less if
everybody reads all of my fucking mail.

> Of course, if all of your personal mail (including financial statements
> etc) is sent on post cards, then (while I think you would be crazy) I
> will at least admit you are consistent. Else, I think you need to look
> hard at the logic you are using.
> 

Again, inconsistant analogy.  This is nothing but photons in it's
ultimate form, and it will never see paper.  Anything that _you_
print is not attributable to me, and any e-mail printed by you
would never be acceptable as a court exhibit.

stop getting cyberspace mixed up with print.

why do you put that cypherpunks address in the header?
just where did this e-mail originate from?

Steve, are you on that cypherpunks list?

-aga

On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, aga wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Dave Kinchlea wrote:
> 
> > 
> > So, you send all of your snail mail on post cards do you? No
> > sealed envelopes at all? Afterall you have nothing to hide, right?
> > 
> 
> Irrelevant analogy; snail.mail and e-mail.  The former is in physical
> form, and the latter usually never is.

No kidding, thanks for that information. Perhaps you can explain how it
is relevant?

> 
> > Of course not, privacy isn't about being a criminal, its about being
> > private. It is not akin to anonymity, *perhaps* those who work
> > anonymously have `something to hide' (still doesn't necessarily make
> > them a criminal, however), 
> 
> Anonymity on the InterNet is a Constitutional right, and is the
> sole supporter of freedom of speech.

Another irrelevant and completely inaccurate point. I utilize free
speech everyday yet I manage to do it without anonymity. 

> 
> > I'll let someone else field that as I feel
> > that anonymity is rarely a good thing. 
> > 
> 
> I disagree, anonymity is a good thing that will never
> be questioned by anybody, but your PGP will, and it
> is really not safe anyway.

ha ha ha, not by anybody huh. What world do you live in? I know plenty
of people who feel that if you must say something anonymously `you must
be hiding something, probably a criminal!'. I don't subscribe to this, I
feel that most people who post anonymously are just chicken-shits, but
that too is besides the point. It *is* questioned by many people.

 And as to PGP not being safe, perhaps you could expand a bit on this,
it hasn't hurt me or anyone I know, seems pretty safe to me. To address
what I assume your point was, it acts as a prefectly good sealed
envelope (and I believe quite a bit more), in the context of my original
reply, this is quite `safe'.

> 
> > Privacy, on the other hand, simply means that not everything I do is any
> > of your business and I would just as soon you not be tempted to even
> > bother trying to find out. 
> > 
> 
> If you do not send it to me by e-mail, I will never see it.

Nor will you see my post-card that I send to my mom, how does that
change the nature of a post-card OR email?

> Why are you so paranoid that someone is reading your e-mail?

Paranoid? No, but why make it easy for anyone to do so? 

> I never do anything criminal, so I could give a shit less if
> everybody reads all of my fucking mail.

so how is it different, besides being electronic, from snail mail? I
repeat, why don't you use post-cards exclusively for mail? Oh yes, that
is `print', a totally different thing, geesh.

> 
> > Of course, if all of your personal mail (including financial statements
> > etc) is sent on post cards, then (while I think you would be crazy) I
> > will at least admit you are consistent. Else, I think you need to look
> > hard at the logic you are using.
> > 
> 
> Again, inconsistant analogy.  This is nothing but photons in it's
> ultimate form, and it will never see paper.  Anything that _you_
> print is not attributable to me, and any e-mail printed by you
> would never be acceptable as a court exhibit.

You appear to be confused, I look at what I wrote and I see nothing at
all that mentions courts. I am talking about personal privacy and the
analogy is not at all inconsistent. (and paper mail is nothing but atoms
in it's ultimate form, so what?)
> 
> stop getting cyberspace mixed up with print.

Why do you think there is something magical about `cyberspace'? Privacy
is privacy, period. Communication is communication, period. There is no
reason to differentiate private communication via print and private
communication via cyberspace. Both are desirable for exactly the same
reasons. 

 > 
> why do you put that cypherpunks address in the header?
> just where did this e-mail originate from?

Thats how it landed on my plate, thats where I send it back, seems
reasonable to me.
 
cheers, kinch

Dave Kinchlea <security@kinch.ark.com> writes:
> >
> > Irrelevant analogy; snail.mail and e-mail.  The former is in physical
> > form, and the latter usually never is.
>
> No kidding, thanks for that information. Perhaps you can explain how it
> is relevant?

Very simple: snail mail is much more suitable to be used as evidence in court
than e-mail.

> > > Of course not, privacy isn't about being a criminal, its about being
> > > private. It is not akin to anonymity, *perhaps* those who work
> > > anonymously have `something to hide' (still doesn't necessarily make
> > > them a criminal, however),
> >
> > Anonymity on the InterNet is a Constitutional right, and is the
> > sole supporter of freedom of speech.
>
> Another irrelevant and completely inaccurate point. I utilize free
> speech everyday yet I manage to do it without anonymity.

It's ironic that I read Dave's e-mail on John Gilmore's private cypherpunks
mailing list, which is known to be censored by John. If you're subscribed to
this mailing list, then you're definitely not utilizing free speech.

> > I disagree, anonymity is a good thing that will never
> > be questioned by anybody, but your PGP will, and it
> > is really not safe anyway.
>
> ha ha ha, not by anybody huh. What world do you live in? I know plenty
> of people who feel that if you must say something anonymously `you must
> be hiding something, probably a criminal!'. I don't subscribe to this, I
> feel that most people who post anonymously are just chicken-shits, but
> that too is besides the point. It *is* questioned by many people.

It's important to remember that petty censors like Bruce Bough oppose
anonymity - they want whoever says something "politically incorrect" to
be punished for their speech. This is in line with the kind of censorship
John Gilmore practices on the cypherpunks mailing list.

>  And as to PGP not being safe, perhaps you could expand a bit on this,
> it hasn't hurt me or anyone I know, seems pretty safe to me. To address
> what I assume your point was, it acts as a prefectly good sealed
> envelope (and I believe quite a bit more), in the context of my original
> reply, this is quite `safe'.

I don't know that PGP is safe. That's I don't use it.
(The exception are my NoCeMbots which use PGP to sign their notices, because
properly implemented NoCeM clients check digital signatures.)

> > Why are you so paranoid that someone is reading your e-mail?
>
> Paranoid? No, but why make it easy for anyone to do so?

I think the censors' agenda is the opposite: they *don't* want anybody to be
able to read the materials they want to suppress. That why they're not
satisfied by using procmail to filter out the unwanted traffic from their
own mailboxes, but want to impose their censorship on any potential reader.
Read the very revealing complaint from the lying shyster Jim Ray for example.

> > I never do anything criminal, so I could give a shit less if
> > everybody reads all of my fucking mail.
>
> so how is it different, besides being electronic, from snail mail? I
> repeat, why don't you use post-cards exclusively for mail? Oh yes, that
> is `print', a totally different thing, geesh.

One can fit more info in an envelope than on a postcard. I knew people who
do use postcards whenever they can to save on postage.

> > > Of course, if all of your personal mail (including financial statements
> > > etc) is sent on post cards, then (while I think you would be crazy) I
> > > will at least admit you are consistent. Else, I think you need to look
> > > hard at the logic you are using.
> >
> > Again, inconsistant analogy.  This is nothing but photons in it's
> > ultimate form, and it will never see paper.  Anything that _you_
> > print is not attributable to me, and any e-mail printed by you
> > would never be acceptable as a court exhibit.
>
> You appear to be confused, I look at what I wrote and I see nothing at
> all that mentions courts. I am talking about personal privacy and the
> analogy is not at all inconsistent. (and paper mail is nothing but atoms
> in it's ultimate form, so what?)

Now, if a piece of e-mail were digitally signed, then it *might* be
more admissible in court.

> > stop getting cyberspace mixed up with print.
>
> Why do you think there is something magical about `cyberspace'? Privacy
> is privacy, period. Communication is communication, period. There is no
> reason to differentiate private communication via print and private
> communication via cyberspace. Both are desirable for exactly the same
> reasons.

John Gilmore has no credibility.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

I told myself that I wouldn't do this but ....

On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:

> Dave Kinchlea <security@kinch.ark.com> writes:
> > >
> > > Irrelevant analogy; snail.mail and e-mail.  The former is in physical
> > > form, and the latter usually never is.
> >
> > No kidding, thanks for that information. Perhaps you can explain how it
> > is relevant?
> 
> Very simple: snail mail is much more suitable to be used as evidence in court
> than e-mail.

But I wasn't talking about evidence in court, ALL I was talking about
was personal privacy in a (wasted) reply to aga's assertion that only
criminals would want to use PGP for email. I made the simple observation
that I think it is reasonable for me to not want others to read personal
(e)mail, period. Nothing about courts, law, free speech or anything
else. That was aga's straw-man, not mine.

[...]

> > Another irrelevant and completely inaccurate point. I utilize free
> > speech everyday yet I manage to do it without anonymity.
> 
> It's ironic that I read Dave's e-mail on John Gilmore's private cypherpunks
> mailing list, which is known to be censored by John. If you're subscribed to
> this mailing list, then you're definitely not utilizing free speech.

On the contrary, nothing and nobody has stopped me (or you apparently) 
from speaking openly and freely. You are just being silly.

I didn't even say I opposed anonymity, I just find it distasteful.
 
[...] 

> I don't know that PGP is safe. That's I don't use it.
> (The exception are my NoCeMbots which use PGP to sign their notices, because
> properly implemented NoCeM clients check digital signatures.)

Well, in case you missed it, I was simply having fun with the word
`safe'. As I do not do things illegal and there is nothing in my
encrypted or non-encrypted mail that would get me into trouble, it is of
course perfectly `safe' even if the encryption were broken. Much more
than adequate for the `envelope' that I want it for. 
 
> > > Why are you so paranoid that someone is reading your e-mail?
> >
> > Paranoid? No, but why make it easy for anyone to do so?
> 
> I think the censors' agenda is the opposite: they *don't* want anybody to be

Blah blah blah, this is your argument not mine. I won't help you here.

cheers, kinch

On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, Dave Kinchlea wrote:

> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 08:08:39 -0800 (PST)
> From: Dave Kinchlea <security@kinch.ark.com>
> Reply-To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org
> To: aga <aga@dhp.com>
> Cc: InterNet Freedom Council <ifc@pgh.org>, freedom-knights@jetcafe.org,
>     cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News 
> 
> On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, aga wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Dave Kinchlea wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > So, you send all of your snail mail on post cards do you? No
> > > sealed envelopes at all? Afterall you have nothing to hide, right?
> > > 
> > 
> > Irrelevant analogy; snail.mail and e-mail.  The former is in physical
> > form, and the latter usually never is.
> 
> No kidding, thanks for that information. Perhaps you can explain how it
> is relevant?
> 

it is not -- I said irrelevant.

> > 
> > > Of course not, privacy isn't about being a criminal, its about being
> > > private. It is not akin to anonymity, *perhaps* those who work
> > > anonymously have `something to hide' (still doesn't necessarily make
> > > them a criminal, however), 
> > 
> > Anonymity on the InterNet is a Constitutional right, and is the
> > sole supporter of freedom of speech.
> 
> Another irrelevant and completely inaccurate point. I utilize free
> speech everyday yet I manage to do it without anonymity. 
> 
> > 

so? that is you. but if a motherfucker wants to be anonymous, he
must be allowed; there is no exception to the rule.

> > > I'll let someone else field that as I feel
> > > that anonymity is rarely a good thing. 
> > > 
> > 
> > I disagree, anonymity is a good thing that will never
> > be questioned by anybody, but your PGP will, and it
> > is really not safe anyway.
> 
> ha ha ha, not by anybody huh. What world do you live in? I know plenty
> of people who feel that if you must say something anonymously `you must
> be hiding something, probably a criminal!'. I don't subscribe to this, I
> feel that most people who post anonymously are just chicken-shits, but
> that too is besides the point. It *is* questioned by many people.
> 

fuck them.

>  And as to PGP not being safe, perhaps you could expand a bit on this,
> it hasn't hurt me or anyone I know, seems pretty safe to me. To address
> what I assume your point was, it acts as a prefectly good sealed
> envelope (and I believe quite a bit more), in the context of my original
> reply, this is quite `safe'.
> 

never ever rely on something being encoded and not able to be
unencoded, that is not possible.  whatever man can do, man can
undue, and that is a law of nature that has no exception.

> > 
> > > Privacy, on the other hand, simply means that not everything I do is any
> > > of your business and I would just as soon you not be tempted to even
> > > bother trying to find out. 
> > > 
> > 
> > If you do not send it to me by e-mail, I will never see it.
> 
> Nor will you see my post-card that I send to my mom, how does that
> change the nature of a post-card OR email?
> 
> > Why are you so paranoid that someone is reading your e-mail?
> 
> Paranoid? No, but why make it easy for anyone to do so? 
> 
> > I never do anything criminal, so I could give a shit less if
> > everybody reads all of my fucking mail.
> 
> so how is it different, besides being electronic, from snail mail? I
> repeat, why don't you use post-cards exclusively for mail? Oh yes, that
> is `print', a totally different thing, geesh.
> 

no, you just need envelopes for multiple pages.

> > 
> > > Of course, if all of your personal mail (including financial statements
> > > etc) is sent on post cards, then (while I think you would be crazy) I
> > > will at least admit you are consistent. Else, I think you need to look
> > > hard at the logic you are using.
> > > 
> > 
> > Again, inconsistant analogy.  This is nothing but photons in it's
> > ultimate form, and it will never see paper.  Anything that _you_
> > print is not attributable to me, and any e-mail printed by you
> > would never be acceptable as a court exhibit.
> 
> You appear to be confused, I look at what I wrote and I see nothing at
> all that mentions courts. I am talking about personal privacy and the
> analogy is not at all inconsistent. (and paper mail is nothing but atoms
> in it's ultimate form, so what?)
> > 

You have it. Just never print anything.

> > stop getting cyberspace mixed up with print.
> 
> Why do you think there is something magical about `cyberspace'? Privacy
> is privacy, period. Communication is communication, period. There is no
> reason to differentiate private communication via print and private
> communication via cyberspace. Both are desirable for exactly the same
> reasons. 
> 
>  > 
> > why do you put that cypherpunks address in the header?
> > just where did this e-mail originate from?
> 
> Thats how it landed on my plate, thats where I send it back, seems
> reasonable to me.
>  

Yeah, but some motherfucker is sending this shit to that list
I think.  What a fucking joke that is.

> cheers, kinch
> 
> 
 cheers,

-aga

aga <aga@dhp.com> writes:
>
> > Of course not, privacy isn't about being a criminal, its about being
> > private. It is not akin to anonymity, *perhaps* those who work
> > anonymously have `something to hide' (still doesn't necessarily make
> > them a criminal, however),
>
> Anonymity on the InterNet is a Constitutional right, and is the
> sole supporter of freedom of speech.

Significantly, Bruce Bough and other EFF/John Gilmore supporters are against
total anonymity just like they're against free speech. They wants to be able
to track down and silence anyone who uses the anonymous remailers to say
something "homophobic" or otherwise politically incorrect - a kind of
"identify escrow".

> > Privacy, on the other hand, simply means that not everything I do is any
> > of your business and I would just as soon you not be tempted to even
> > bother trying to find out.
> >
>
> If you do not send it to me by e-mail, I will never see it.
> Why are you so paranoid that someone is reading your e-mail?
> I never do anything criminal, so I could give a shit less if
> everybody reads all of my fucking mail.

I again remind you the lying shyster Jim Ray who tries to "guest" who
might be behind various anonymous postings and complains to the suspects'
postmasters just in case. What a lying piece of shit. Does anyone know the
snail address for Judge Kozinski? Jim Ray's been boasting so much about his
correspondense with the good judge, that we must warn him about Jim's lies
and hypocricy (notably, his *true* position on anonymity).

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps