From: Hal <hfinney@shell.portal.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 94 16:34:51 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Remailer Detweiler filtering
Message-ID: <199407172336.QAA02923@jobe.shell.portal.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Nobody wrote:

> 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"?

The issue is not a desire to deprive Detweiler of the benefits of anonymity;
it is that he appears to do things which are designed to bring down the
remailer network.  By intentionally mass-posting to inappropriate news-
groups, and injecting exponentially-growing messages into the remailer chain,
he seems to be trying his best to deprive the benefits of the remailer net-
work to others.  This is, of course, in accordance with his well-known
position against anonymity.

If Detweiler succeeds, Nobody won't get to post anonymously (so to speak)
anymore.  I know that it is unfortunate that the remailer network is so
fragile that a lone crackpot is a significant threat, but presently that is
essentially what the situation is.

> 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.

Pragmatically, I think that filtering Detweiler is more likely to provide
privacy than not doing so.  I understand the charges of inconsistency but
IMO the particular facts of a case are a better guide to the proper action
than abstract arguments.

> 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?

If chained, encrypted remailing techniques are used, it is not a question
of "exposing" anyone.  Detweiler may be blocked from the network (if everyone
agrees to do so) but it won't be possible to find out just what he is being
blocked from doing.  Had he been sufficiently careful in the first place
there would not necessarily be any way of knowing who exactly was producing
the offensive messages.  In that case I believe most of the remailers would
no longer exist.

> 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 suggest, then, that you run a remailer (it only costs $20 a month on the
system I use), and publicize the fact that Detweiler can use yours with
impunity.  Set up a mail-to-news gateway that other remailer operators can
use so that they don't have to worry about the consequences of abuse.
It's easy to talk about sacred ideas, but perhaps not so easy to keep an
unpopular and misunderstood remailing infrastructure in place.  "Xenon"
also accused us of hypocrisy, started up a remailer, and stopped it in just
a couple of days faced with these kinds of problems.

> "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)

Detweiler is free to send any messages he likes; his service providers are
free to continue or terminate his accounts as they see fit; and remailer
operators are free to establish whatever policies they like for message
handling.  What better implementation of free speech could you want?

Hal Finney
hfinney@shell.portal.com