1994-02-16 - Re: Detweiler abuse again

Header Data

From: wisej <wisej@acf4.NYU.EDU>
To: “Timothy C. May” <tcmay@netcom.com>
Message Hash: 749379245af3587923be6eab3ae6eb82dab08880302b5bb19354bbc7bf7df88e
Message ID: <Pine.3.87.9402152238.A8647-0100000@acf4.NYU.EDU>
Reply To: <199402150457.UAA14579@mail.netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-02-16 03:27:05 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 19:27:05 PST

Raw message

From: wisej <wisej@acf4.NYU.EDU>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 19:27:05 PST
To: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Detweiler abuse again
In-Reply-To: <199402150457.UAA14579@mail.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.87.9402152238.A8647-0100000@acf4.NYU.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Mon, 14 Feb 1994, Timothy C. May wrote:

> Derek Atkins writes:
> > I disagree.  While I can honestly say that I don't like most Detweiler
> > posts, I feel that he is showing us the possibility of how remailers
> > can (and are) being abused.  I think censorship is the wrong answer.
> > I think there needs to be some accountability, even if it is anonymous
> > accountability.
> It's really not censorship for Hal or any other remailer operator to
> say _his_ machines, accounts, reputation, etc., will be used to mail
> death threats to whitehouse.gov, for example, or mailbombs to
> newsgroups and mailing lists.

While it is not censorship as such, it rather seems against our stated goals as 
cypherpunks to advocate such filtering...not because of what it blocks from our 
own sites, but it _does_ affect those downstream.  To give an example of why 
this is important, last July (June?) the University of Canterbury in 
Christchurch New Zealand began filtering all alt.sex.* newspostings from their 
site.  Well this in itself was perhaps harmless, the topology of NZ's corner of 
the net is such that as a result _all_ net-sites in the entire of NZ's South 
Island lost these newsgroups.  While I'm not saying that the University were 
outside of their rights, we must keep the wider issues in view at all times.

Another key point is that we not let our own personal feelings interfere with 
our political actions.  I'm sure most of us here were offended by the 
suggestions in the heat of the anonymity debate that all anonymous postings to 
newsgroups be killed...yet here are cypherpunks advocating the filtering of all 
Detweiler and Detweiler-seeming posts.  Sure, the guy's a prick, but should we 
let him turn us into fascists?

				Jim Wise
Version: 2.3