From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 14:20:36 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
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: <J50HXD11w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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.

> > > 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.

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.

> > 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.

It's important to remember that petty censors like Bruce Bough oppose
anonymity - they want whoever says something "politically incorrect" to
be punished for their speech. This is in line with the kind of censorship
John Gilmore practices on the cypherpunks mailing list.

>  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'.

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.)

> > 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
able to read the materials they want to suppress. That why they're not
satisfied by using procmail to filter out the unwanted traffic from their
own mailboxes, but want to impose their censorship on any potential reader.
Read the very revealing complaint from the lying shyster Jim Ray for example.

> > 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.

One can fit more info in an envelope than on a postcard. I knew people who
do use postcards whenever they can to save on postage.

> > > 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?)

Now, if a piece of e-mail were digitally signed, then it *might* be
more admissible in court.

> > 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.

John Gilmore has no credibility.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps