1994-04-05 - Re: going in anarchic circles

Header Data

From: Grand Epopt Feotus <68954@brahms.udel.edu>
To: tmp@netcom.com
Message Hash: 4623c01100d40cf913527163d1b04b02ba97aa93e9a472d895a29c83f9c158bc
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9404051651.A28652-0100000@brahms.udel.edu>
Reply To: <199404051818.LAA17079@netcom9.netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-04-05 20:50:47 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 5 Apr 94 13:50:47 PDT

Raw message

From: Grand Epopt Feotus <68954@brahms.udel.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 94 13:50:47 PDT
To: tmp@netcom.com
Subject: Re: going in anarchic circles
In-Reply-To: <199404051818.LAA17079@netcom9.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9404051651.A28652-0100000@brahms.udel.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Tue, 5 Apr 1994 tmp@netcom.com wrote:

> ok, suppose that every internet company decided that they would install
> `fingerprint keyboards' and require use of them by users. these keyboards
> sense your fingerprints as you type on the keyboard and can be used to
> reject users not authorized to use a given account. they simply tell people
> who do not want to use the system, `tough luck'. in a sense, this is something
> like how our social security system and drivers licensing works today. there
> are few (legal) alternatives to them.
	Won't happen.  Espaecially since there is not some
	monolithic organization of internet companies, and as a
	matter of fact, not all providers are companies, some are
	colleges who could ill afford such keyboards, and even
	some more are simply people running providers out of
	their basementsand bedrooms.  Not only that, butsuch a
	system would be bypassable by abusers and their ilk.
	Just like the social security and drivers license system
	is easily bypassable by abusers who so desire.  But you
	did put the legal limiter in thier, but as we both now,
	that doesnt mean shit in this world really.

> so, how do you get a connection to this net? you are probably going to
> propose `starting a new net without these draconian restrictions'. but
> what you have done is propose a new set of rules -- `we don't need no
> stinkin rules'. how is your system going to deal with sites that corrupt
> passed mail? that harbor hackers and crackers? it really amazes me guys,
> but if you think the internet is some kind of anarchy right now,you
> are completely mistaken. you agree to a set of rules when you join the
> net. those rules are set by your provider.  you agree not to corrupt
> mail you forward, don't mailbomb usenet, etc.  currently there are many 
> `unspoken rules' -- but it makes sense for them to be codified so that 
> everyone understands what they can expect of each other.
	hehe, the who idea of saying we don't need stinking rules
	being a setting up of our own rules is ludicrous.  That's
	the argument I would expect froma  afifth grader.  How
	will mysystem deal with crackers etc?  I will do my best
	with security as I can, ye I know these still leaves me
	open to attack, but that's part of the territory.
	Because even if you DO set upa list of guidelines these
	things would still happen.  Your trying to put laws on
	people who have no intention of following them.  Do you
	think a law outlawing cracking sniffing etc would stop
	someone capable of them who wanted to?  Noway.  And by
	the way, suggested guidelines and niceties are not
	"illegal" in an anarchy.  You make the mistake of
	thinking that all anarchy means everyone kill everyone
	else, but it doesnt.  Basically I have no problems with
	being nice with agreements, but don't try to make them
	law, because all that does is make more criminals and
	doesnt reduce the problems.

> there is no guarantee of your
> access to the current net. doesn't that seem kind of fragile? you think
> you don't have to have any faith? it seems you have a lot of faith you
> will always be able to get a connection to the internet. why not try
> to set up a system or organization that is committed to formalizing
> the rights and expectations of users on the net and specifying what
> constitutes `basic access'?
	I will always have connection to the internet if I desire
	it, be it legal or not, but yes, I do have a bit of
	compassion for those unable to do that.  My answer tho is
	not regulations and the like, my answer is to make it as
	open as possible, the more people providing the more
	freedom and competition to drive down prices.  When I can
	provide acces from my bedroom, and it is reasonable to do
	so, then any concept of restrictions is nullified, since
	there is no way of enforcing them really.  And the good
	news is, that I CAN run a provider on my lowly budget if
	I so desire NOW.  the answer is not an ORGANIZATION,
	since they would have no ral jurisdiction or power on the
	net, the answer is to make setting up providers very
	easy.  My favorite example of this is FIDOnet, and the
	hundrds of other bbs nets that sprang up with it,after
	it.  FIDO net may have a central organization or set of
	laws, but I can think of a lot of such nets that have no
	rules, tho yes I do admit noen as big as FIDO net.

> ok, so i set up a node that randomly corrupts all the mail that i pass
> through my site. i mailbomb the cypherpunks list and all the remailers.
> how do you deal with it? you send shrieking mail to all my upstream
> site providers asking them to yank me. what if i have bribed them
> all very lucratively? what if they decide that you don't pay enough,
> so they are going to yank you instead? (not worth the hassle of your
> insults, after all) what if i have dozens of accounts on different
> public domain sites? i seem to be going in circles here. 
	No, for the first, I dont pass mail thru your system, and
	no I would not send screiching mail to upstream
	providers.  I would simply find a way to deal with it
	thru filters or rerouting, or I would cope.  I know this
	may not be appealing to alot of people, but I see it as
	the only viable option.

> excuse me, mr. idealist, but you live in a world that no one would
> recognize as their own. cyberspace exists only because people have
> constructed it. you cannot escape that interaction of a community.
> no man is an island. what guarantees you will have a connection to 
> the network today? absolutely nothing. it is just your faith in
> the great cybergods. cyberspace is nothing but crystallized human
> interaction.  how do you deal with the `pathological' cases of human
> behavior such as harassment, terrorism, censorship, etc?
	NO fuckin kiddin.  And you seem to have some desire to
	create your own cybergods with your organizations. IMO
	yeah such organizations weould be nice for show, to
	develop niceties etc.. but they would have no real power
	at all.  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.  Im in school now so my
	connection is provided for, if the school decided to go
	elsewhere, I would go to a local provider or to another
	method.  As for how would I deal with these pathological
	habits, I would certainly not rely on some central
	organization which itself would be unable to stop them.
	There part of life, and their part of cyberlife(badpun).

> unix passwords represent a reasonable amount of security. they prevent
> me from hijacking your account. more sophisticated levels exist.
	That's true, it's reasonable but easily broken if really
	desirous.  Such abusers would be able to surpass it.
	Also account hijacking is unnecasary most of the time to
	reek havoc.

> don't think of it as `us vs. them'. think of it as `us' erecting our
> own framework of self-regulation. it would allow `us' to get rid of the
> detweilers of the world in our community. cyberspace is not an amorphous
> Gibsonian blob!! it is a physical infrastructure policed by humans as
> simply as our physical roads are!! the police already exist, they are 
> called `system administrators', except they have no uniform code of 
> conduct today, except `if something pisses me off, disconnect it'.
	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

> what if you wake up one day and find that all the people you want to
> talk to, and you thought were your friends, all on a separate network,
> and you are isolated with Detweiler, Depew, Morris, and Mitnick on the
> AnarchyNet?
	Cool, I would dig talking with morris, mitnick, and
	busting on Det. hehe.  I see no need to answer this since
	it will NEVER happen.  Settin gupa  provider is too easy.
	All you will do by enforcing regulations and the ilk is
	making it harder to provide acces at a grass roots

> cyberspace is what we make it. if no name is ever connected to a human,
> it can be constructed that way. if identity is important (as most of
> human history seems to imply) we can translate it into the new realm. but
> you are continuously mixing up what is possible with what you want. if
> you don't want something that is possible, then it's possibility is 
> irrelevant. 
> why don't you just preface your remarks by saying `i only
> want a version of cyberspace where no one is responsible for their
> actions!!' and i'd just leave it alone. as it stands you argue that
> cyberspace = anarchy by definition. i cannot agree.

	Your a fool if you think that what I want is a place wher
	noone is responsible.  I just said that organizations and
	regulations will not make those who are the abusers any
	more responsible.  I see as much potential in kyberspace
	as you do, to make a change etc.. but a centralization of
	something that is inaely decentralized, at it's core is
	utter stupidity.

> this dialogue appears to be at the point of arguing two different religions,
> so it is not very fruitful for any of us, but if grand epopt feotus represents
> the basic cypherpunk views, then i find it all very fascinating. you guys 
> realize that you have a very unusual culture that is highly distinct from
> virtually any other culture ... at least that i am aware of. you do seem
> to have some parallels to the russian nihilists, some of the libertarians,
> some of the anarchists, but you have a very distinct blend of it ....
	I myself dont even know the basic cypherpunk views, it's
	just my views, dont rty and group me or anyone else
	please.  So which one of our religions is the equivalent
	of the centralized catholic church?  Who is your pope
	tmp?  Will we let some organization try and put
	restrictions on something that is unrestrictable?  

	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----