From: Grand Epopt Feotus <68954@brahms.udel.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 94 18:03:05 PDT
To: tmp@netcom.com
Subject: Re: going in anarchic circles
In-Reply-To: <199404052327.QAA27179@mail.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9404052044.A8481-0100000@brahms.udel.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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

> 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.
>
	And the sad truth is that even if you made a "Bill Of
	Rights" I would not be garaunteed acces.  There is no
	nation or group that could hold enough sway in Cspace to
	do this IMO.  They could write one up and go "ohhhh
	ahhhhhh wow" at it, but there would be little they could
	do to enforce it.  This net is multi-national,
	multi-government, and multi-cultured.  While such an idea
	may sound good, it's not going to solve any problems.


> 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. 
>
	I would like the idea of cypherpunk approved stickers for
	those sites that are discreet in their service and
	provide good acces, but what would this do? Nothing
	really except maybe make a few readers of this list go to
	those providrd if they are close enough.  I mean what
	owuld be the criteria for sucha  approval?  We are far
	from an organized group, so who would make the decisions?
	Noone really could.


> 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.
> 

	I am wondering why every statemetn revovles aroun tc may?
	he's cool and all but... do you have an unatrual
	attraction for him or do you se him as my leader?  I have
	never seen these complaints so I cant respond to this in
	an informed manner.

> >	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'
>
	The nasdaq in my opinion is far from a ample model for
	cyberspace.  The internet is not crying for a policy
	at all.  I dont se what prompts this notion.

> 
> none of these guarantee you a connection. 
>
	And as I said before, neither would an organization or
	bill o rights.  Or have you noticed that constitutional
	rights mean nothing in this country anymore? 8)

> 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.
>
	I coudlnt, others could.  Also, the NSA space is not of
	the same nature as Inet.  you comparing a closed system
	to a naturally open system.

> 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.
>
	And that is my point.  Make your own locks, but DONT go
	out and try to force them on others, you can suggest
	them, yes, but dpont ry to initiate some global policy.

> 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>
>
	Not likely.  We're out of the realm of small sandboxes,
	and into interconnected beaches 8).  and PLEASE do not
	lump Cpunks at all.  The rest of the world may try and
	regulate is, but the problewm IS that I can just add my
	little space that isnt regulated, be it legal or illegal,
	and if it comes to bieng illegal to get my words out,
	than so be it.  Im prepared for that, and I think alot of
	people on this list are too.


> pseudonymously yours,
> --tmp
> 

	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----