From: Dave Kinchlea <security@kinch.ark.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 19:42:59 -0800 (PST)
To: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <dlv@bwalk.dm.com>
Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
In-Reply-To: <J50HXD11w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961116193331.1181H-100000@kinch.ark.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I told myself that I wouldn't do this but ....

On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:

> Dave Kinchlea <security@kinch.ark.com> writes:
> > >
> > > 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?
> 
> Very simple: snail mail is much more suitable to be used as evidence in court
> than e-mail.

But I wasn't talking about evidence in court, ALL I was talking about
was personal privacy in a (wasted) reply to aga's assertion that only
criminals would want to use PGP for email. I made the simple observation
that I think it is reasonable for me to not want others to read personal
(e)mail, period. Nothing about courts, law, free speech or anything
else. That was aga's straw-man, not mine.

[...]

> > Another irrelevant and completely inaccurate point. I utilize free
> > speech everyday yet I manage to do it without anonymity.
> 
> It's ironic that I read Dave's e-mail on John Gilmore's private cypherpunks
> mailing list, which is known to be censored by John. If you're subscribed to
> this mailing list, then you're definitely not utilizing free speech.

On the contrary, nothing and nobody has stopped me (or you apparently) 
from speaking openly and freely. You are just being silly.

I didn't even say I opposed anonymity, I just find it distasteful.
 
[...] 

> I don't know that PGP is safe. That's I don't use it.
> (The exception are my NoCeMbots which use PGP to sign their notices, because
> properly implemented NoCeM clients check digital signatures.)

Well, in case you missed it, I was simply having fun with the word
`safe'. As I do not do things illegal and there is nothing in my
encrypted or non-encrypted mail that would get me into trouble, it is of
course perfectly `safe' even if the encryption were broken. Much more
than adequate for the `envelope' that I want it for. 
 
> > > 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 think the censors' agenda is the opposite: they *don't* want anybody to be

Blah blah blah, this is your argument not mine. I won't help you here.

cheers, kinch