From: J. Michael Diehl <mdiehl@triton.unm.edu>
Date: Sat, 22 May 93 22:44:36 PDT
To: ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu (L. Detweiler)
Subject: Re: fwee! are we having fun yet?
In-Reply-To: <9305230459.AA25350@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Message-ID: <9305230544.AA06451@triton.unm.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> This is an open letter to E. Hughes.
> 
> Let me review my arguments for starting the group immediately.
> 
> 5. No one other than the poster takes heat.  The poster should not post
> if they are concerned about the risk.

I'm curious as to what good this will be then.

> Look, apparently you haven't got any heat on the Mycotronx postings,
> but wouldn't you feel a hell of a lot more comfortable if they
> *weren't* funneled through your single machine? Ask Steve Jackson what
> paranoid and degenerate agents can accomplish when they have an
> easily-identified, portable target and some vague suspicions!  The 911
> document has all the criminality of a wedding announcement compared to
> the Mycotronx stuff!  Don't these postings demonstrate there is an *immediate* need?

The distributed nature of a usenet group would be nice....

> have controversial postings to the group, starting out. Currently,
> though, I just think there is just no momentum without a group.  Which
> comes first, the anonymous servers or the group? Obviously, the *group*!

Without controversial postings, no one will read the group.  What is the point,
then?

> Here's my idea. For *now*, lets just use alt.whistleblower as a
> *clearinghouse* of material that was *already posted* elsewhere on the
> net. That is, nobody takes any personal risk. They just keep their eyes
> out for stuff that appears in other places that fits into the
> `whistleblowing' category and forwards it to that group. If there is
> any heat they just point to the original posting and say `I did nothing
> but forward it, don't talk to me about it.'  (By the way, the Mycotronx
> posting is awesome whistleblower stuff, the kind that legends are made
> of, but I think it still might be a bit risky to post that to a Usenet
> group yet, even an `alt', even anonymously). Also, we can just forward
> interesting stuff from newspapers and magazines. No risk there. If
> anybody thinks they have a solid way to remain anonymous (we're talking
> about cypherpunks here, I'm sure they'll find a way) they can post
> *now* using old-fashioned methods.

Some time ago, I joined the bandwagon in opposing this "hasty" decision to
form the WB group.  But, I like this idea.  My reason for opposing it the first
time was that people's lives/jobs could be at stake.  This might be a 
germination point for the full-blown WB group, but without the risks to it's
contributers.  I like this idea.
> 
> What more can I say?  Isn't the immediate need transparently clear? 
> Does *anyone* read what I write? Am I nothing but a babbling, deranged
> lunatic? Just *watch* how fast I get a FAQ there, if it *ever* starts...

I'm reading it.  And (for once?) I agree on this subject.

> There are now several hundred quasi-official cypherpunks, and I think a
> lot of them are agitated and itching for something to do! Not to

I know the feeling..... ;^)

+-----------------------+-----------------------------+---------+
| J. Michael Diehl ;-)  | I thought I was wrong once. | PGP KEY |
| mdiehl@triton.unm.edu |   But, I was mistaken.      |available|
| mike.diehl@fido.org   |                             | Ask Me! |
| (505) 299-2282        +-----------------------------+---------+
|                                                               |
+------"I'm just looking for the opportunity to be -------------+
|            Politically Incorrect!"   <Me>                     |
+-----If codes are outlawed, only criminals wil have codes.-----+
+----Is Big Brother in your phone?  If you don't know, ask me---+