From: Anonymous <nowhere@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 94 08:56:16 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <199407171554.KAA03441@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Well, keeping in the spirit of the original message, I will reply
to it anonymously. Besides, what I am going to say probably won't
be popular.

>i'm glad ghio caught that message in his mailbox through careful screening
>so that it wouldn't go out to the newsgroups. I always thought the
>remailers were automated, but I guess in most case the operators are 
>screening all the stuff. this is good, because we don't need any more
>Detweiller junk out there (amazing how peaceful things are without him!!!)
>too bad if the message was forged, because it would be LOTS of fun to
>EXPOSE THE BASTARD!!! (insert evil smirk here)

Did anyone else shudder when they read this? All I can say is that I am
*glad* this person does not run a remailer (although, if I were really 
paranoid, I might speculate that he does!).

As Tim May and Carl Kadie have pointed out on numerous occasions,
by systematically filtering mail the operator tends to lose the protection
of the legal status of "common carrier". I don't know if a remailer 
operator would be classified as such but others have proposed that
idea.

But just from a philosophical view, I think any remailer operators
hunting for Detweiler-grams in all their incoming mail are employing
a procedure that is antithetical to their entire commitment. Isn't
it just a *teensy* bit hypocritical? Is this how you are going to build
cyberspatial-wide confidence in the use of your remailers for their
dependability and secrecy? Isn't it just a *teensy* bit hypocritical
to yell to the world that ANONYMITY IS THE RIGHT OF MAN and have a little
whisper in small print, "unless you are an official enemy of the 
cypherpunks"?

Is it just me, or is this Detweiler thing blown *way* out of proportion?
He seems like a harmless crackpot occupying himself by banging on a 
keyboard. In fact, being consistently at the tmp@netcom.com even helps to 
filter him.

Cypherpunks, we believe in the philosophy that we are being oppressed
by numerous forces that seek to deprive us of our privacy-- big business,
the government, police, etc. But how can we claim to uphold the philosophy
of freedom of speech and privacy looking at our relationship with Detweiler?
Sometimes I think he was sent by God to test us.

What is it in the human psyche, rooted deep in our subconscious, that 
pushes us to *vengeance* against those who offend us? That pushes us to
want to *expose* them (as the person said above, "EXPOSE THE BASTARD!!!").
Do we have any consistent beliefs? How is that we, who are dedicated
to privacy, broadcast to everyone listening in a clear voice, that
"freedom of speech does not belong to people who offend us"? There is
a saying, "who will guard the guardians themselves"? Who will ensure
that those who advocate anonymity actually follow through, if they don't?

I personally advocate that the Detweiler-Detritus be allowed through
the remailers unaltered as a blaring advertisement to the entire world
of cyberspace that yes, we believe that anonymity is *sacred*, even more
so than we believe that Detweiler is the AntiChrist of the Cypherpunks.

"I detest what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to
say it." --Voltaire

"Freedom of speech does not end at the point that it offends; to the
contrary, that is where it begins" --Supreme Court justice (paraphrase)

That's all I have to say.