From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 07:21:34 -0800 (PST)
To: bryce@digicash.com
Subject: Re: [NOISE]-- [PHILOSOPHYPUNKS] Re: The House Rules At The Permanent Virtual Cypherpunks Party
In-Reply-To: <199612021148.MAA04719@digicash.com>
Message-ID: <32A2F39C.5996@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Bryce wrote:
> Hi Dale.  I believe I've seen you around.  Thanks for replying
> to my article.
> >  Bryce wrote:
> > > I.  Etiquette -- The House Rules At The Virtual Cypherpunks Party
> > > The Meta-Rule:  It's John Gilmore's virtual house.  He is the
> > > sole owner of the computer (toad.com) that hosts cypherpunks
> > > and the sole authority over what the users of that computer
> > > (you) can do with it.

> > Ordinarily, I'd leave this post alone, but I really hate it when people
> > twist ideas for their own philosophical purposes.  To whit: "John is the
> > sole authority over what the users of his computer can do with his
> > computer" (quote approximate).
> > I don't *do* anything with *his* computer. I send email into the ether
> > with an address on it, and he picks it up at his discretion and does
> > what he wants with it.  I am in no way involved in that process, and I
> > do not share *any* responsibility for how he handles the email.

> Hm.  So if you send an email into the ether with
> "Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com" and "Subject: MAKE MONEY REALLY
> TRULY FAST!", then you share no responsibility for the fact
> that a copy of that email is going to arrive in the inboxes of
> thousands of subscribers?
> Okay, it could be an interesting discussion, but what's your point?
> My point was (and is) that neither you nor I have any kind of
> _right_ to access the services of toad.com against John's
> will.  Seems like a very simple point (deceptively simple, one
> might say...), but I recall several people, including Dale
> Thorn, opining that Dmitri Vulis _did_ have the right to access
> those services with or without John's consent.

Now I've gotcha!  If I, Dale Thorn, an ordinary person (not a commercial
mailer), realize somehow what your snail mail address is (an analogy),
and I send you a personal letter, are you saying I don't have the "right"
to do so?  Even if I am aware that you redistribute the letter, as, say,
a newspaper such as the L.A. Times would?

I'm guessing that what you're saying is something to do with the content
or size of such a mailing, yes?

But whatever the case, I'm not "doing something with" your mailbox if
I send you a snail mail letter, and I'm not "doing something with" your
computer if I send you a posting. It's you who know the result of opening
up your computer to the phone lines, and it's up to you to post *your*
"rules", and to date, I don't recall any postings from John Gilmore to
me or the list regarding such rules, just a few little tin-plated
dictators doing it in his name.