From: anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 16:31:17 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Clam Wars
Message-ID: <199606090513.WAA08328@jobe.shell.portal.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


 > 2. The anti-scientologists have caused many cypherpunks
 > anonymous remailers to shut down via their egotistical
 > misuse of them, viz. criminally posting copyrighted Co$
 > writings to Usenet. They did it knowing that the Co$ is
 > likely to harrass the remailer operators, causing them to
 > shut down and depriving everyone of their services.

This scenario is beginning to sound suspiciously similar each time
it happens:  an anonymous individual or individuals utilize a
remailer in a way that's deemed abusive, certain individuals
complain loudly, and the remailer (or mail2news gateway) either
shuts down or blocks the affected newsgroup.  Thus far I've seen it
happen with the alt.religion.scientology, alt.smokers, and
alt.syntax.tactical newsgroups.

This is setting a bad precedent.  It sends the message that you
merely have to fabricate a little "abuse" through one or more
remailers to get what you want -- the elimination of your opponents'
platform to dissent without fear of retribution.  Whether the abuse
in any of the aforementioned instances was actually fabricated or
not is immaterial.  If it wasn't, it very could have been, with
identical results in either case.  The problem being, with an
anonymous attack through a remailer and/or mail2news gateway, how do
you identify the intended victim?  Was it the NG or the
remailer/gateway itself?

The first two NGs have one striking similarity:  both involve a
product or service where those who stand to profit from it have
recently been plagued with "whistle blowers" and "defectors" from
among their ranks -- the CO$ and the tobacco industry.  In both
cases, those who've come forward and divulged secrets have reported
harassment.

I'm at a loss to understand the blocking of the third NG,
alt.syntax.tactical, however, unless the intent was strictly
punitive.  I can't imagine anyone from a.s.t. coming forward to
complain about "abuse"!  That would be like complaining about foul
language on alt.blasphemy.  <g>