Re: Dr. Vulis' social engineering experiment

Also Sprach Adam Back:
> 
> It is my belief
> that his posts can only be understood in a "meta" sense -- he is
> engaged in a highly complex cryptographic experiment.  People who read
> and respond to his individual posts are the unwitting subjects in his
> experiments.  His posts and the responses to them are actually the
> data-set for a thorough cryptanalysis of mailing list threats.  His
> current topic under investigation is Denial of Service (DoS) attacks
> on mailing lists.

I agree that this is what is being done, but the experiment dorsn't have
as much to do with cryptanalysis as much as it has to do with sociology. 
 The limits here are not mathematical and static, they are social and
based on the limits of tolerance of both the group and the individual. 

> I await with interest the last phases of Dimitri's experiment, when
> the cypherpunks list becomes a moderated forum.

That appears to be the main brunt of his efforts, to "push the envelope"
of free speech in order to force it's definition. Perhaps to exhibit
the necessity for a controlling authority, and thus justify the existence
of the various agencies which are trying to control the flow of 
information in this country and elsewhere. 

> I hope Dimitri's selfless efforts in furthering understanding of DoS
> attacks on mailing lists is properly acknowledged when he publishes
> his findings on completion of his experiments.  I also hope that
> Dimitri will document his recommendations for mailing list
> configuration and management in light of his experiments.
 
I would not say that what he is doing is a bit selfless, the Clipper
Chip crowd are probably lining his pockets in a big way. That's 
acknowledgement enough for me. :-/ 
 
"In peacetime, a warlike man sets upon himself." -- Nietzsche

-- 
Marcus: "They'll try to kill you."         |
Xena: "Oh, I still have a few tricks       | "Here we GO!!!" 
       left up my sleeve...I don't         |           -- Jane's Addiction
       have any sleeves!" -- Xena bloopers |

Jane Jefferson wrote:
> 
> That appears to be the main brunt of his efforts, to "push the 
> envelope" of free speech in order to force it's definition. 

Well, the irritating part is that I think he's pushing the wrong
envelope.  Why anyone would expect any particular degree of 
"freedom" to use a service run for free by a private individual
is beyond me.

I appreciate the service, but I don't take it for granted and I
certainly don't take it as an inalienable right.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Mike McNally -- Egregiously Pointy -- Tivoli Systems, "IBM" -- Austin
mailto:m5@tivoli.com    mailto:m101@io.com    http://www.io.com/~m101
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Mike McNally wrote:

>   Why anyone would expect any particular degree of
> "freedom" to use a service run for free by a private individual
> is beyond me.

  I agree, totally.
  Just because an individual claims, rightly or wrongly, to be a
big defender of freedom, involving himself or herself in causes
like those of the Electronic Freedom Foundation, does not take
away their right to stomp on anyone who disagrees with them on
their own private list.
  To claim otherwise would be as ludicrous as denying the person
running the Anonymizer the right to expose the identities of the
people he feels might perhaps be abusing his private system, or
using it for nefarious purposes, such as hiding their identity 
from others.

Toto
 
> I appreciate the service, but I don't take it for granted and I
> certainly don't take it as an inalienable right.
> 
> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
> Mike McNally -- Egregiously Pointy -- Tivoli Systems, "IBM" -- Austin
> mailto:m5@tivoli.com    mailto:m101@io.com    http://www.io.com/~m101
> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^