From: Richard Johnson <Richard.Johnson@Colorado.EDU>
Date: Thu, 19 May 94 22:50:02 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Sternlight "kill" file
In-Reply-To: <m1tca00@FRB.GOV>
Message-ID: <199405200549.XAA03037@spot.Colorado.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


  From the keyboard of:  Tom Allard <m1tca00@FRB.GOV>
> Well, Sternlight has threatened to talk to my superiors (no
> one is superior to me :) if I don't apoligize to the world for
> forwarding beker@netcom.com's message posted to this list to
> alt.security.pgp.

Heh.  Sternlight is really trying to throw his weight around here,
isn't he.  How sad, but not surprising.  His job will be much
easier if he can silence some of the opposition to his half-truths
and innuendo.

As Jim Thomas notes in the following post to alt.security.pgp, M.
Sternlight is somewhat ignorant of Copyright law and precedent,
including such things as fair use, implicit assignment of rights,
etc.  Note that Mr. Thomas posted his missive to a usenet newsgroup
that receives posts from cypherpunks.  The fact that we have to
use manual means to make the gateway go in two directions makes it
no less valid a gateway than those between other mailing lists and
usenet newsgroups (like comp.society.cu-digest, for example :-).

---------

From: jthomas@well.sf.ca.us (Jim Thomas)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.david-sternlight,alt.security.pgp
Subject: Re: David Sternlight's Slurs About Folks With "2.3a" Keys
Date: 20 May 1994 04:02:28 GMT
Message-ID: <2rhcok$sbq@nkosi.well.com>

In article <strnlghtCq2Eqs.2xB@netcom.com>,
David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> wrote:

>By publishing a private e-mail, both beker and Johnson are in violation of
>my copyright in that message, since it was a private communication and no
>permission was given to republish.

Not surprisingly, Sternlight reveals his ignorance of copyright law.

>Thus beker has now committed a new violation of his netcom agreement, and
>Johnson shows he has bad judgement. What's more, by trying to make what
>should be a private matter, to be decided by netcom based on their own
>rules, into a public cause celebre, and by writing to netcom as Johnson did
>to intervene in a private matter, he has made the situation worse for beker,
>not better.

Sternlight has failed to demonstrate:

1) That the first alleged violation was, in fact, a violation, and not
   simply a labeling ruse. Sternlight has rushed to judgment and
   tried and convicted without evidence. An honorable person would
   first ascertain facts prior to taking action

2) Sternlight claims a second violation of netcom's agreement without
   demonstrating what the violation is. An honorable person would
   reproduce the relevant text of the agreement and then make the
   corresponding case. Instead, Sternlight asserts. This is consistent
   with his style in which he defames others and then complains that
   he is defamed when others hoist him by his own petard.

3) That Sternlight snoops through others' stuff and then leaps to
   judgment on the bases of superficial cues is, indeed, a matter of
   public concern. If Sternlight snooped through my system files and
   found titles such as suckme.gif, jailbait.gif, and 69riders.exe,
   would he have complained to our university officials that I am
   in violation of school anti-porn policies? 

If the facts of Sternlight's latest escapades are accurate, and Sternlight's
post seems to confirm them, then it is fully appropriate to alert
the public that a demonstrable defamer is actively perusing accounts and
notifying sysads of what he finds.

Perhaps Sternlight should look up "honor" in his dictionary.

Jim Thomas

...
>David