cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1996-12-02 - Re: The House Rules At The Permanent Virtual Cypherpunks Party

Header Data

From: Bryce <bryce@digicash.com>
To: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Message Hash: bdaf4d929fa25b241ebecd05478d151c935519447a92b826f52e6b499e6e34a0
Message ID: <199612021201.NAA05961@digicash.com>
Reply To: <329F9BA0.541B@gte.net>
UTC Datetime: 1996-12-02 12:01:44 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 04:01:44 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Bryce <bryce@digicash.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 04:01:44 -0800 (PST)
To: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Subject: Re: The House Rules At The Permanent Virtual Cypherpunks Party
In-Reply-To: <329F9BA0.541B@gte.net>
Message-ID: <199612021201.NAA05961@digicash.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

 A million monkeys operating under the pseudonym "Dale Thorn
 <dthorn@gte.net>" typed:
>
> Bryce (I think) said words to the effect that "We (subscribers) are doing
> something with John's computer, etc.", as though the list subscribers are
> actually operating John's computer, with John's kind permission and over-
> view


Yes, this is fairly accurate.  Of course we (most of us) do not
have full Turing machine access to John's computer or to its
peripherals, but we do have access to a few simple functions
which we use with gusto, including broadcasting, subscribing
and unsubscribing, and the other functions of majordomo.


Perhaps you are objecting to the idea that our access to John's
computer is equivalent to, say, our access to our own
computers?  I certainly agree with you that it is not the same
kind of access.


> What I said was:  I don't *do* anything with John's computer, I merely
> mail messages with an address on them, and John can remail or dispose of
> those messages as he wishes, as long as he doesn't modify them or otherwise
> use them for any purpose besides what they were intended for.


Yeah, there are some (relatively) subtle issues here like "when
is it merely extended causal relation and when is it usage", or 
"what are the details of this implicit agreement that we have
with John" or whatnot, but I'm not sure that those are the
issues that you are talking about.  To wit:


> Bryce's (I think) writing was clearly an example of the kind of double-
> speak that 1984-ish censors use to justify their actions, and I for one
> cannot let that kind of B.S. go unchallenged.


What?  What sly newspeak did I use and more importantly what
great truth am I attempting to conceal?


Bryce




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2

iQB1AwUBMqLFH0jbHy8sKZitAQGJuQL+O3nz30rJqJp2rGajj+yeZAFTlu4hISTU
/GbSxJLXrBCHGA0SQhVnMpImre3RhJEx1IrwFV+ZeWiubVYtR24s1CEzxDUu5fMb
3XcQUHeUJmG4JpjyFsvpN1Mh6WKKy2Al
=Lp9K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Thread