1994-02-05 - SQUISH II, the SEQUEL

Header Data

From: “L. Detweiler” <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: d03ed67bc5b79480282d95b521e67ee2ed1745fc7e044acac91497b966603213
Message ID: <199402050840.BAA18743@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-02-05 08:45:22 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 5 Feb 94 00:45:22 PST

Raw message

From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 94 00:45:22 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: SQUISH II, the SEQUEL
Message-ID: <199402050840.BAA18743@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Hello, my mailbox has been awfully quiet lately from cypherpunk rants,
and I need a bit of a massage at the moment, so I wanted to ask you a
question. Have you considered what I was saying about preventing
`abuse' of remailers? I have given you some time to formulate a plan. 
 
so-- could someone email me your new official Cypherpunk ethical
guidelines for anonymous posting, involving your opinions and
procedures on libel, harassment, and `violent death threats'?

what's that? you don't have an official policy or any safeguards?

I guess that means that `anything goes' (quite literally!)

kind of a disturbing policy, because someone simultaneously very
ingenious and malicious could create some major annoyances. I guess you
already know that. but even the past `operations' could pale in
comparison to future ones. the possibilities are really limitless.
imagine what can be accomplished when no one is held accountable for
what they post! why, it is a recipe for Utopia. cypherpunks, I so
admire your vision of the future.

BTW, I want to commend you anonymous site operators for your
resilience. it does appear that the remailers are fairly secure, at
least, that is the picture portrayed to `outsiders'. of course, with
insiders, it is a different story. but in a certain interesting
application of anonymous remailers, e.g. an enemy attacking the
remailers themselves, the confidentiality of identity among `insiders'
is not critical. in fact, it can be very satisfying for an enemy to
strike his foe, even while the foe sees his face, but can do nothing
about it because of his own predicament. even more delightful (for the
attacker, that is!) is the situation where the `predicament' is not
even due to the attacker, but entirely the enemy himself. in other
words, the most effective and devastating tactic of guerilla warfare is
to twist technology to get your enemy to shoot *himself*.





Thread