From: Jim choate <ravage@wixer.bga.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 93 12:04:18 PST
To: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Subject: Re: Banning any subscriber
In-Reply-To: <199311271908.LAA16939@mail.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <9311271955.AA08359@wixer>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>
> Jim Choate has raised some questions about the nature of the List,
> about its privacy, and has said that some of us are trying to scare
> Detweiler with phony AIDS test results.
>
> Here are my responses to these questions. I suppose I'd best copy the
> Cypherpunks list as well, though there's been too much noise lately
> about Detweiler, by Detweiler, and for Detweiler. Oh well.
>
>
> > I want to thank everyone for their repsonce to my earlier mail. I do have
> > some questions however.
> >
> > 1. CypherPunks supports crypto so people cant tamper w/ my mail but you wan
t
> >    to censor somebody at the source. How can you support this?
>
> Personally, I don't support it, and only a few folks have publically called f
or
> it, as is their right in a forum like ours. Their concern is likely
> that a single person can in fact bring down a list, can be so
> disruptive that the S/N drops to an unacceptable level.
>
> A better solution, if the CPU at Toad can handle the extra load, is
> the filtering software used now on the Extropians list. Subscribers
> can filter out threads they don'e want to see, users, etc. This may be
> coming to the Cypherpunks list.
>
> Please note that Eric Hughes never removed L. Dewtweiler from the list
> (nor anyone else, so far as I know). In fact, Detweiler requested that
> he be unsubscribed. He may or may not be subscribed under another
> account name, and, in any case, he seems to see some posts.
>
> And he bombards us every night with his missives.
>
> > 2. Everyone says this list is private. Nowhere has this EVER been mentioned

> >    in any conversation or info that I have read. The implication in all the

> >    posts, print articles, and talk at the local group meet led me to believ
e
> >    CypherPunks was a public forum for discussion and implimentation of cryp
to
> >    related material. Was I misunderstanding something?
>
> The list is not "private" in the sense of being a deep, dark secret.
> Instructions on how to join are easily available. But most mailing
> lists have a different "feel," a different sense of "community," than
> mere newsgroups have. Newsgroups encourage casual drop-ins who don't
> bother to read the traffic, but who just fire off a few posts and then
> are gone; at least with mailing lists it takes some small effort to
> get on and off them.
>
> We've had debates every few months about mailing list vs. newsgroup,
> and I can't stop this debate from happening again. There are reasons
> pro and con to have Cypherpunks a mailing list, and mailing lists
> continue to flourish for a variety of reasons.
>
> > 3. Sine at least part of the networks and hardware the mail list is used on

> >    is publily funded how can you construe it as private w/o some form of
> >    moderator or subscriction contract?
>
> If a car happens to drive on a public street are all rights to privacy
> lost? If a phone call is made and part of the signal path includes a
> publically-subsidized link, is all privacy lost? Is your e-mail
> subject to inspection by the authorities merely because it passes
> through systems they control?
>
> Ultimately, this is why we support encryption and free markets. (Well,
> many of us support free markets.) In the meantime, the Electronic
> Communication Privacy Act protects e-mail against certain kinds of
> seizures. It's not clear (to me) what this means for "quasi-private"
> mailing lists, but at least it may provide some legal defense should
> government agents cite discussions on this list as evidence of
> sedition, treason, conspiracy, etc.
>
> > 4. The responces to L.D. about mail-bombs and posing as a AIDS lab is much
> >    worse and more troublesome to me than anything I have seen L.D. post. No
t
> >    only is some of the actions proposed criminal but I fail to see how a
> >    group which relies on its reputation can support or condone such comment
s.
>
>
> Hold on there, pardner! That post you are referring to was yet another
> one of Detweiler's own "an12070" posts! Even if there wasn't
> compelling circumstantial evidence--cited by so many people here--that
> S. Boxx = The Executioner = Psychopunk = Zen Master = an12070 = L.
> Detweiler, then this latest rant would _still_ have the stylistic
> earmarks of a put-on.
>
> Read it again, if you can stomach it, and bear this in mind.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> --Tim May
>
>
> --
> ..........................................................................
> 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: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
> Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.
>

First, I NEVER made any accusative statements that ANYONE was trying to
scarey ANYBODY with AIDS statements or otherwise. I DID say that such
statements bother me more than any statements that L.D. has made. To make
such an act against somebody because they print something you don't like, no
matter how heinous, is bigotry plain and simple. The ends do not justify the
means (in my opionion it should be never) in this case. To react this alleged
idiots posts with anything other than a simple deletion is silly and to take
active steps is insane and possible criminal.

Some people have sent me private e-mail saying he has threatened them and
other such things and that this justifies banning (and in some mail
apparently any other action). I used to work in a tech support dept. for a
computer company and a customer threatened to fly from Mi. to Austin to shoot
me and beat up the rest of the dept. because FedEx sent his package to Puerto
Rico by mistake. Does this justify me banning him from tech support? I would
say no and in reality while I am shure he broke some kind of law it ain't
worth the hassle to prove I am right (it seldom is really). I would say that
the only rational way to respond to the problem is to ignore it. Socio-paths
thrive on attention, deny it and they go where they can get it (has anyone
mentioned alt.conspiracy to this guy?)...

Now some of you are going to say that I am a newbie and should be ignored.
That is fine, but remember one thing - newbies is what an organization like
this requires to thrive. If you really want to make CypherPunks work and get
something worthwhile accomplished then please drop L.D. and this whole thread.
The peace simply isn't worth the cost to obtain it...(IMHO)

If this is truly a private list then you need to put more effort into being
clear that this is a indivudualy supported mail-list and is not officialy
associated w/ CypherPunks. I would offer the following protocol:

1. User sends mail w/ 'subscribe' in the body.

2. The mailer responds w/ a numbered header.

3. The user is requied to copy the message from #2 completely and to append
   'agree'.

4. The user is then added to the list.

While it is true that some of you may see this as trivial but if you really
want to keep CypherPunks an open forum and this list private (ensuring that
they are seen as seperate entities) it is critical that this is made at every
oppportunity.