From: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 13:43:55 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Let's Nuke Singapore Back into the Stone Age
Message-ID: <ae4fa048030210045de0@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 1:41 AM 9/2/96, Arun Mehta wrote:
>At 10:35 31/08/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote:
>
>> If discussions of Lee Kwan Yew's dynasty are considered illegal, then
>>Singaporans will have to choose not to carry the various newsgroups into
>>which *I* post such messages!
>
>How long do you propose to carry on doing that? Soon, the others
>in the newsgroups will be asking you very impolitely to stop,
>just as you would if someone kept on and on posting such stuff to cypherpunks.

Actually, we already have several examples of how this worked, including
some cases I was directly involved in. During the Teale-Homulka trial in
Canada, many of us (me, too) posted numerous articles about it to the
various *.canada newsgroups, such as soc.culture.canada. Canada had the
choice of instructing all ISPs to halt the *.canada newsgroups. There were
no real complaints that I recall about messages being "off-topic," as they
clearly were very much on-topic. (Not that a few complaints have ever
stopped me. While I don't spam newsgroups with auto-generated spam, I
figure any article I take the time to actually write and that deals with
the newsgroup involved, by my own standards, is fair game. My ISP can
cancel my account if he feels I have spammed newsgroups in some way.)

My proposal is not to post anti-Singapore screeds to comp.lang.java or the
like, but to post them to various groups Singaporans and their neighbors
might read. If Singapore wishes to disconnect itself from
soc.culture.singapore, this is there choice. Then, the attack can spread to
various other groups Singaporans might want to read....

(I call this a _good_ use of "info-terrorism.")

...
>True, but Usenet only functions because it works most of the
>time. To the extent we subvert this consensus, we damage Usenet,
>make it less useful. It shouldn't happen that in trying to save
>or spread Usenet, we have to destroy it...

Posting the Homulka stuff did not kill the Usenet. Posting the autopsy
photos of Nicole Brown Simpson did not kill the Usenet. Posting the innards
of RSA Data Security algorithms did not kill the Usenet. If Canker and
Sludgewell spam cannot kill the Usenet, if "Make Money Fast" noise cannot
kill the Usenet, and if "Babes will fuck 4 U" posts cannot kill the Usenet,
then surely some informative posts about the fascist Yew posted to various
newsgroups of relevance to Singaporans and Asians will not kill the Usenet!

>>And _never_ has it involved determinations of "inappropriate" by
>>_governments_!
>
>There I'm with you -- I'm merely suggesting that you find a way
>to protest Singapore's actions in a manner that would be less
>objectionable to most Internet users, in Singapore and outside.

Why? What is "objectionable" about exposing the truth about Lee Kwan Yew,
his feeble son, and their dynasty? What is "objectionable" about teaching
them how to use Web proxies, remailers, and other tools of liberty?

If the citizens find this stuff objectionable, they can simply not read the
stuff! As with books, movies, and magazines. What could be more natural
than this?

But of course it is the _rulers_ of these Asian kingdoms and satrapies
which want the distribution of certain thoughts controlled and denied to
their serfs and citizen-units.

--Tim May


We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."