From: Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 21:31:59 -0800 (PST)
To: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <dlv@bwalk.dm.com>
Subject: Re: At the risk of getting flamed :)
In-Reply-To: <uqT6ZD13w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
Message-ID: <32D32AFD.4ECA@sk.sympatico.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> I find it indicative that what I call outing a well-known and widely 
> abused security hole, you call abuse.

  The CyberDweebs at plaidworks.com also seemed to take great offense
at my pointing out that what they called 'loopholes' in their system
was actually a conscious, calculated decision to leave their system
open to abuse so that every computer-illiterate Laker fan named 
Bubba could use his two-fingered typing skills to subscribe to
1,000 sports lists.

> I also happen to have done a lot to bring
> computer networks and privacy technology to places and people who still
> wouldn't have had it otherwise - perhaps more than any "cypher punk".

  Much of what you do goes unnoticed, due to the fact that many who 
make the same claims put you in their killfile.  It seems that they 
are only in favor of 'politically correct' technology, without any
social issues input or commentary.

> I think Dale Thorn hit the nail right on the head when he described "cypher
> punks" as security people.  They want privacy
> technology only for their paying customers, and only if the customers
> use it "responsibly", i.e. don't say something the 'punks find objectionable.

  I've attended punk-rock concerts where some of the 'punks' complained
loudly and vociferously about the slam-dancers.
  "Hey, that guy 'bumped' me."
  "Somebody could get hurt."
  "Who do they think they are?"  ('Punks", perhaps?)

> People who voluntarily submit to censorship by Sandy deserve pity.

  Or deserve 'censorship'.

Toto