From: aga <aga@dhp.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 04:19:42 -0800 (PST)
To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org
Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961116074506.1181B-100000@kinch.ark.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961117071330.25183B-100000@dhp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, Dave Kinchlea wrote:

> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 08:08:39 -0800 (PST)
> From: Dave Kinchlea <security@kinch.ark.com>
> Reply-To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org
> To: aga <aga@dhp.com>
> Cc: InterNet Freedom Council <ifc@pgh.org>, freedom-knights@jetcafe.org,
>     cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News 
> 
> On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, aga wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Dave Kinchlea wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > So, you send all of your snail mail on post cards do you? No
> > > sealed envelopes at all? Afterall you have nothing to hide, right?
> > > 
> > 
> > Irrelevant analogy; snail.mail and e-mail.  The former is in physical
> > form, and the latter usually never is.
> 
> No kidding, thanks for that information. Perhaps you can explain how it
> is relevant?
> 

it is not -- I said irrelevant.

> > 
> > > Of course not, privacy isn't about being a criminal, its about being
> > > private. It is not akin to anonymity, *perhaps* those who work
> > > anonymously have `something to hide' (still doesn't necessarily make
> > > them a criminal, however), 
> > 
> > Anonymity on the InterNet is a Constitutional right, and is the
> > sole supporter of freedom of speech.
> 
> Another irrelevant and completely inaccurate point. I utilize free
> speech everyday yet I manage to do it without anonymity. 
> 
> > 

so? that is you. but if a motherfucker wants to be anonymous, he
must be allowed; there is no exception to the rule.

> > > I'll let someone else field that as I feel
> > > that anonymity is rarely a good thing. 
> > > 
> > 
> > I disagree, anonymity is a good thing that will never
> > be questioned by anybody, but your PGP will, and it
> > is really not safe anyway.
> 
> ha ha ha, not by anybody huh. What world do you live in? I know plenty
> of people who feel that if you must say something anonymously `you must
> be hiding something, probably a criminal!'. I don't subscribe to this, I
> feel that most people who post anonymously are just chicken-shits, but
> that too is besides the point. It *is* questioned by many people.
> 

fuck them.

>  And as to PGP not being safe, perhaps you could expand a bit on this,
> it hasn't hurt me or anyone I know, seems pretty safe to me. To address
> what I assume your point was, it acts as a prefectly good sealed
> envelope (and I believe quite a bit more), in the context of my original
> reply, this is quite `safe'.
> 

never ever rely on something being encoded and not able to be
unencoded, that is not possible.  whatever man can do, man can
undue, and that is a law of nature that has no exception.

> > 
> > > Privacy, on the other hand, simply means that not everything I do is any
> > > of your business and I would just as soon you not be tempted to even
> > > bother trying to find out. 
> > > 
> > 
> > If you do not send it to me by e-mail, I will never see it.
> 
> Nor will you see my post-card that I send to my mom, how does that
> change the nature of a post-card OR email?
> 
> > Why are you so paranoid that someone is reading your e-mail?
> 
> Paranoid? No, but why make it easy for anyone to do so? 
> 
> > I never do anything criminal, so I could give a shit less if
> > everybody reads all of my fucking mail.
> 
> so how is it different, besides being electronic, from snail mail? I
> repeat, why don't you use post-cards exclusively for mail? Oh yes, that
> is `print', a totally different thing, geesh.
> 

no, you just need envelopes for multiple pages.

> > 
> > > Of course, if all of your personal mail (including financial statements
> > > etc) is sent on post cards, then (while I think you would be crazy) I
> > > will at least admit you are consistent. Else, I think you need to look
> > > hard at the logic you are using.
> > > 
> > 
> > Again, inconsistant analogy.  This is nothing but photons in it's
> > ultimate form, and it will never see paper.  Anything that _you_
> > print is not attributable to me, and any e-mail printed by you
> > would never be acceptable as a court exhibit.
> 
> You appear to be confused, I look at what I wrote and I see nothing at
> all that mentions courts. I am talking about personal privacy and the
> analogy is not at all inconsistent. (and paper mail is nothing but atoms
> in it's ultimate form, so what?)
> > 

You have it. Just never print anything.

> > stop getting cyberspace mixed up with print.
> 
> Why do you think there is something magical about `cyberspace'? Privacy
> is privacy, period. Communication is communication, period. There is no
> reason to differentiate private communication via print and private
> communication via cyberspace. Both are desirable for exactly the same
> reasons. 
> 
>  > 
> > why do you put that cypherpunks address in the header?
> > just where did this e-mail originate from?
> 
> Thats how it landed on my plate, thats where I send it back, seems
> reasonable to me.
>  

Yeah, but some motherfucker is sending this shit to that list
I think.  What a fucking joke that is.

> cheers, kinch
> 
> 
 cheers,

-aga