From: Ken McGlothlen <mcglk@cpac.washington.edu>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 93 12:14:53 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: The Courtesies of Cypherpunks
In-Reply-To: <9311130846.AA19291@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Message-ID: <9311132017.AA17747@yang.cpac.washington.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu ("L. Detweiler") writes:

| I owe no courtesy to someone who forfeits any respect in their atrocious
| misbehavior.

But wouldn't you say that *any* mailbombing is atrocious behavior?  So why
should you garner further respect?

| [...]  If you mailbomb me, you have forfeited your `right to privacy'.  If
| you email my postmaster a complaint about me before contacting me, you have
| forfeited your `right to privacy'. If you lie to me, you have forfeited your
| `right to privacy'. If you fail to adequately respond to my personal
| accusations of impropriety or criminality, especially meeting them with
| evasion or stonewalling, you have forfeited your `right to privacy'.

The first one has the most credibility as far as forfeiting one's right to
privacy.  But then, I think that mailbombing someone, and then threatening more
mailbombs, might well lead to getting some help from the site administrator, or
even the subnet administrator if need be, because that sort of juvenile,
puerile action isn't warranted at any time.  The last one is the . . . well,
stupidest, because if that held to *everyone*, then nobody would have any right
to privacy.  Anyone could accuse anyone, without basis, of impropriety or
criminality.  Hey, Detweiler, where were you on the night of February 4, 1989?
Someone was breaking into my system from colostate.edu. . . .  Unless it was a
special event, you'd probably have a tough time remembering what happened to
you on that day, much less rounding up witnesses.  So how can you make an
"adequate response"?  Whose definition of "adequate response" do you use?

I just don't think that your rather arbitrary, personal criteria justify
forfeiting one's "right to privacy"---and whose definition do you use for that?

| If you have ever sent me mail as a Snake of Medusa or a Tentacle of a
| Monster, you have forfeited your `right to privacy' -- under ALL your
| pseudonyms and identities.

Pardon?  Meaning that if I'd sent you mail---*any* mail---via anon.penet.fi,
that I forfeit my "right to privacy"?  That's ludicrous.  Inane, even.

| If you have done any of the above to *anyone*, you have forfeited your `right
| to privacy' with respect to EVERYONE in your society!

Again, whose definitions do we use?  I'd really hesitate to use yours as
written above.  Why not my definitions?  Because I think mailbombs at *any*
time are odious, because they not only affect the users involved, but every
site that message goes through.  So have you forfeited your right to privacy?
If not, why?  Who says?

| I also think you have forfeited your right to speak in that society as well
| -- maybe only temporarly -- but in situations where these kinds of outrageous
| behaviors are condoned by a corrupt moderator, no recourse except leaving or
| starting a new list is possible.

Well, who decides?  You or the moderator?  Maybe the moderator prefers his
definitions.

| That is the Detweiler Code of Cyberspatial Ethics and Privacy.

Fortunately, there has been no move to adopt this sort of "code of ethics" on a
general basis.  It's not so much a "code of ethics" as much as it is a "code of
Detweiler uber alles."  It's just too arbitrary and Detweiler-centric, and the
results of violating your code of ethics seems to be swamping people with
mailbombs, so. . . .

| No wonder you guys identify with David Koresh. I assure you, future
| Cyberspace will not be big enough for the both of us.

More ludicrousness.  Cypherpunks is not made of a uniform hive of like-minded
hackers (traditional sense).

| Go ahead, CENSOR me! For the crime of writing `FLAMEBAIT' or, equivalently,
| YELLING THE TRUTH.

What truth?  You haven't really said anything useful here, you've just tried to
dictate what your "code of ethics" is, which boils down to "if you do something
I don't like, at any point, you lose your right to privacy as far as I'm
concerned."  It's arbitrary and capricious; not all that useful to the rest of
us, and hardly appropriate to this list.

| You guys really do have *some* ethics, don't you? ``Don't ever DIRECTLY
| CENSOR ANYTHING!'' ``NEVER GET CAUGHT or be PERSONALLY ACCOUNTABLE or
| RESPONSIBLE for ANYTHING!''

And as for that point, you are guilty of lumping all of us together again,
aren't you?

				---Ken McGlothlen
				   mcglk@cpac.washington.edu
				   mcglk@cpac.bitnet