From: Grand Epopt Feotus <68954@brahms.udel.edu>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 94 19:17:38 PDT
To: tmp@netcom.com
Subject: Re: rights in cyberspace
In-Reply-To: <199404042316.QAA14782@netcom9.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9404042213.A28877-0100000@brahms.udel.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Mon, 4 Apr 1994 tmp@netcom.com wrote:

> guys, it seems to me that if you want to censor detweiler,
> then you would have to construct a system where names map to people
> as a `given'. otherwise, you are just going to be tortured forever by
> your own `cryptoanarchy'. (a complex subject, one that i don't fully 
> grasp, perhaps only the author t.c. may does) if you don't want to 
> `liquidate' detweiler, then WHY THE HELL IS EVERYONE SO HOSTILE TO
> INNOCENT BYSTANDERS WHO HAVE THE SAME INITIALS BY COINCIDENCE?! is
> this your idea of an ideal meeting place? where there is suspicion
> and distrust?
>
	I comprehend my own brand of crypto/cyber-anarchy.  I
	personally do not go for any of the regulations or
	"protections" that have been proposed so far.  IMO, if
	you want to put your machine on the net, take your
	chances.  It's getting very cheap to set up a node now,
	and if I choose to do so I would not take kindly to any
	restrictions upon my activity, be it legal, or illegal
	even.  Myself, I would much rather take the lumps of some
	abuse, rather than have ANY regualtion put on my usage of
	my personal node, or interaction between connected nodes.
	This makes room for alot of abuse, I admit that, but I
	just don't see how all these Bill-O-CyberRights stuff,
	and CyberKommunity will work when your dealing with a
	space that has no boundary.  This is a metric space, whos
	distances are measured in connectivity, there are no real
	boundaries as the are easily breached and morphed.

	Basically I don't care if you are or not Dietwieller, so
	I won't get flurried or nmothing over it.


> take your pick -- no accountability for actions whatsoever, *ever*, and
> you have rampant `detweilering'. or, people agree to some accountability.
> there is no such thing as `an anonymous act'. people who live in communities
> can ask that each other adhere to the laws of the community and evict them
> if there is evidence otherwise. the purpose of a trial is to `judge evil
> deeds'. 
>
	IMO, FUCK that shit.  How the hell are you going to evict
	me if I break one of the laws?  There is no way you can
	develop a fool-proof system to control use, I even
	seriously doubt you can install a shitty system even.
	Basically if I want to do something, it will get done.
	The whole concept of a police force controlling
	cyberspace is a leap back about a billion evolution
	cycles.  You can't patrol an amorphous blob.  I would
	actually prefer the possibility to Detwielering so to
	speak,than to allow someone to try and control this.  If
	they dont like what my node is doing, than cut
	connections to my node.


> so, should we allow morphing? or are you going to insist that morphing is
> an uncontrollable technology and therefore regulation is futile? you see,
> anything is possible among people who are willing to cooperate. if we decide
> that maymorphing is illegal in our society, we can work to prevent it.
> but if we have the ulterior motive that, ultimately, we don't want to be
> held accountable for `our own evil deeds', then you have anarchy, or rampant
> detweilering. (hee, hee, love that verb)
>
	This loses consequence in Kyberspace.  You can decide
	that hacking is illegal(cracking) but you wont stop it,
	you may stop the casual cracker, but someone who does it
	professionally or witha  passion etc... will not be able
	to be stopped.  You are unable to hold someone
	accountable for their own deeds in a space like
	kyberspace where psuedonyms are part of the fabric of the
	space.


> well, it appears that no one here is interested in developing a sort of
> `cyberspatial community' that has codified rules of conduct. do you know
> of anyone who might? seriously, i mean. don't give me snide email like
> `try the nsa'...
>
	Your right, I dont want a kyberspace community, thats the
	wrong idea.  Dont bring your three dimensional models
	into a space that is amorphous and IMO best related to a
	infitine dimensions metric space.  Perhaps that is not
	the aboslute correct topological term for it, but I think
	it should get the point across.



	You're eqipped with a hundred billion nueron brain, that's
	wired and fired, and it's a reality generating device, but
	you've got too do it.  Free youself  ----Tim Leary----