cryptoanarchy.wiki

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

1996-12-02 - [NOISE]– [PHILOSOPHYPUNKS] 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: ef66ac6756c1f93422451c02a27b4e6306dc1fb325dbd79f5fed97ebc4aa8a74
Message ID: <199612021148.MAA04719@digicash.com>
Reply To: <329E4432.4D93@gte.net>
UTC Datetime: 1996-12-02 11:48:08 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 03:48:08 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Bryce <bryce@digicash.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 03:48:08 -0800 (PST)
To: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Subject: [NOISE]-- [PHILOSOPHYPUNKS] Re: The House Rules At The Permanent Virtual Cypherpunks Party
In-Reply-To: <329E4432.4D93@gte.net>
Message-ID: <199612021148.MAA04719@digicash.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



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

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.
> 
> [mo' snip]
> 
> 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).


Can you "to wit" one or two more times, here?  I'm not sure
what idea is being twisted into what other idea and which
philosophical purpose this twisting serves.  But I'm curious.


> 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.


What gives?


Regards,

Bryce




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

iQB1AwUBMqLB80jbHy8sKZitAQHf9QL+LBEJ3Fc+l2KjfDFSNP9iYac0k07Bb20e
mEzpNyvfJxJkH1sTc9D/jkr59JGSm888Akp24FchrQQNA2YcUkon0XlY3p/pyJYm
oDhnQyg0cR+u9nAbeWrIbV5Krz1eeqqw
=fa24
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Thread