From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 05:07:56 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@count04.mry.scruznet.com
Subject: Re: At the risk of getting flamed :)
In-Reply-To: <199701041746.JAA11844@count04.mry.scruznet.com>
Message-ID: <uqT6ZD13w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


[CC'd to 2 mailing lists]

Kelly G. <cypherpunks@count04.mry.scruznet.com> writes:

>     Hi Dimitri,
>    did the freon tape cleaner work out on those
> papers that had gotten soaked?? you hadnt let me know the results..

Thanks - I passed on your advice, but I think they decided to get rid of
almost everything... It's better to keep stuff on optical storage anyway.

> I caught your article in phrack. Hmm you do indeed know how
> to abuse  mail and news protocols...

I made the cancelbot publicly available because I don't believe in "security
by obscurity". Usenet cancels are broken and should be ignored. I find it
indicative that what I call outing a well-known and widely abused security
hole, you call abuse.

>                                      have you any got any
> ideas of how to get cypherpunks back on track and at least
> eliminate the commercial spamming of the list that is occurring

Cypherpunks have been forging Usenet posts from "freedom-knights@jetcafe.org"
to alt.business.* et al, asking for business opps in e-mail. I'm thinking of
forwarding the resulting spam on f-k back to cypherpunks. In this case, the
best way to prevent unsolicited junk e-mail is not to forge solicitations for
such e-mail in the names of the people you disagree with in the first place.

> n.b. I still class you as a cypherpunk even though you have a private
> war going on with most of the rest of the list..

You're wrong. I happen to advocate absolute freedom of speech, privacy,
anonymity for everyone, including those I don't agree with. These principles
are totally alien to "cypher punks". 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".

"Cypher punks" are a primarily gay social club who advocate privacy for
themselves, but not to their many enemies. Do you read the traffic on
their mailing list? "Crypto is only for the elite." "Freedom of speech
is only for those who use it responsibly."

I think Dale Thorn hit the nail right on the head when he described "cypher
punks" as security people. Their interest is not the wide deployment crypto
technology (that's my agenda). They're more interested in silencing the
"homophobes" (meaning, anyone disagreeing with a "cypher punk", irrespective
of whether it has anything to do with homosexuality). 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.

Take a look at Sameer's net.scum web page for some examples. When he got sued
by SPA because his customers pirated software, he claimed that he doesn't
censor based on content. At the same time he pulled a plug on an account used
to display a web page critical of Tim May, calling it "libel". No wonder Sandy
now whores for this pimp.

John Gilmore complaint to the upstream sites of his many "enemies" when he's
outed as a cocksucker (clearly content-based), while claiming (through his
mouthpiece Timmy May) that he only censors based on volume, not content.

> also note that sandys offer earlier of flying you out here to meet us
> was quite real and your safety was assured..(I would have guarenteed
> your safety myself) , we just often find out here on the west coast that
> conflict resolution happens best face-to face in quiet discussion.
> After all you know me face to face and personally!

Re-read some of the shit Sameer's whore has been posting to c-punks.
People who voluntarily submit to censorship by Sandy deserve pity.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps