From: tmp@netcom.com
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 94 16:27:12 PDT
To: Grand Epopt Feotus <68954@brahms.udel.edu>
Subject: Re: going in anarchic circles
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9404051651.A28652-0100000@brahms.udel.edu>
Message-ID: <199404052327.QAA27179@mail.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>	I will always have connection to the internet if I desire
>	it, be it legal or not, 

pure faith. nothing guarantees this to you. you cannot point to any 
intentionally designed aspect of the existing internet that guarantees
that you personally will have a internet account or connection. in fact,
there are many limitations in your existing contract with your provider,
i'm sure, and lots of vague clauses that give them the ability to 
yank it whenever they feel like it for whatever reason they like.

why is this such a bizarre idea? i heard of the cypherpunks coming up
with `big brother stickers' for at&t phones. how about a `cypherpunk
approved' sticker for internet providers that grant a minimal amount of
service? i see tc may yelling at netcom all the time-- do something
constructive!! come up with a statement that describes exactly what
*you* demand of an internet provider, and maintain a list of sites that
conform. 

at the root level, when tc may complains that his internet service is
lousy, he is saying that `we deserve better than this'. `we deserve some
basic amount of service'. `we have expectations'. these are the same
thoughts that motivated the writing of the bill of rights.

>	my answer is to make it as
>	open as possible, the more people providing the more
>	freedom and competition to drive down prices.  

it is not always the case that regulation guarantees that freedom
and competition will be stifled. there is a very strict code of 
entry into the nasdaq stock exchange or any other stock exchange, 
yet companies manage to flourish within this framework. the internet
is *crying* for a universal policy that everyone can agree, `this
is what it means to be on the internet'

>	What garauntees my connection?  Well for some
>	people it's cash, money, for others it's their job, for
>	me it's who I know and my skills.

none of these guarantee you a connection. 

>	Because there is no real us.  You'll never get rid of the
>	abusers, and yes it will be an amorphous blob.  You
>	cannot police kyberspace, since I can create my own
>	extension of that spacde at will, all I need is a willing
>	provider, or an unwilling provider whos a little lax in
>	security.

you seem to argue again that cyberspace = anarchy or at least
cyberspace will always lack the security necessary to prevent certain
accesses. well, consider this argument. the nsa has a network. in
a sense it is `cyberspace'. but you don't have access, try as you might.
wouldn't you like to poke around that corner of cyberspace? you can't.
there is a titanium lock in front of you.

>	Your a fool if you think that what I want is a place wher
>	noone is responsible.

absurd statement given the rest of your commentary. you sound to me
like a thief saying, `i can break any lock'. well, yes, but that is
no reason to stop building strong locks, and rational people will
use them.

>	Will we let some organization try and put
>	restrictions on something that is unrestrictable?  

apparently none of the cpunks will. but you may find that in the blink
of your eye, all the rest of the world has, and you are left with nothing
but a small sandbox to play in. <g>

pseudonymously yours,
--tmp