From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 21:34:31 -0800 (PST)
To: bryce@digicash.com
Subject: Re: [NOISE]-- [PHILOSOPHYPUNKS] Re: The House Rules At The Permanent Virtual Cypherpunks Party
In-Reply-To: <199612021544.QAA12207@digicash.com>
Message-ID: <32A3BBD6.1ECA@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Bryce wrote:
> > 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?

> Yes this is a fine analogy.  You have the right to send
> whatever letters you want; you don't have the right to demand
> that any particular thing be _done_ with those letters once
> they arrive, in the absence of some contract to the contrary.

In the interest of reducing the amount of argument, let's speak more
precisely:  I think people *do* have the right to demand such a thing,
although they do *not* necessarily have the right to force such a thing.
Perhaps there is a thin line between "demand" and "protest", but most
subscribers should be able to figure it out.

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

> Noooo...  What I was saying was that even such a simple service
> as a mailing list raises some complex issues about agency and
> responsibility.  Did _you_ send MMF to all those people, or did
> Gilmore?  What if Gilmore had a MMF filter in place?  What if
> you evaded it?  What if Gilmore only broadcasts signed messages
> and you signed the MMF?  What if you paid to have it broadcast?

I can't argue the responsibility part.  As far as the size issue, it was
raised (sadly) several days and hundreds of postings *after* Dimitri was
excommunicated from the list, by none other than T.C. May.  Tsk, tsk.

> So what _I'm_ saying is that there are some complex issues
> about this kind of cyberspatial event, but that the realspace
> substrate is relatively simple-- it's Gilmore's computer and
> you have no moral authority to demand that he do or not do any
> particular thing with it.

I made note to this list time and time again requesting that people not
state the obvious - who owns what hardware and what rights they have to
pull the plug or whatever.  I seriously doubt that even the least
intelligent cypherpunk would misunderstand such a thing. Do you really
believe that myself and other cypherpunks want to "seize" John's equip-
ment, morally or otherwise?  You are correct about certain issues being
complex, but one of the big failings of the crowd who supported Gilmore
on this action was their failure to understand the point I've made here -
that we *do* understand basic property rights, etc.

> In the following, you appear to take exception to both of these
> claims, or at least to the first one-- I'm not sure.

> > 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.

> I'm still not sure if you are just prone to colorful rhetoric,
> or if I have really upset you with something I've said.  If the
> latter, I still don't understand what, exactly.

How can I say this better?  Myself and a number of other people would
really have appreciated it if John had defended himself.  The fact of
all these other would-be experts on cyber-rights and morals preaching
to the list on behalf of Gilmore, and Gilmore being silent, argues
(not proves, just argues) heavily in favor of Dimitri et al.