From: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 13:32:52 +0800
To: Bill Frantz <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: CDT, RSACi, and "public service" groups (1/3)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970725091822.21324C-100000@well.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970725222141.0072e90c@netcom10.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 09:04 PM 7/25/97 -0700, Bill Frantz wrote:
>At 9:18 AM -0700 7/25/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>>RSAC-PS raises the same troubling questions as RSACnews: what is a "public
>>service" group? Who decides?
>
>This question is easy to answer.  By being publicly available, they are ALL
>offering public services.  Therefore they are all free from
>mandatory/voluntary ratings.

Bridges are at a bargain this week... Of course my dear friend Bill knows
better than to believe what he wrote. :-)

The large media conglomerates (really an extension of the government) will
decide under the "voluntary" rating system who is a "reliable" news source
worthy of a RSACi carte blanc. Hmm, sounds just like the "persons of
undoubted reliability" authorized to acquire firearms in Europe a while
back. [Reichsgesetzblatt, year 1928, number 18, part 1, paragraph 16.1]

After all, we wouldn't want people of questionable reputation, such as John
Young, publish news anybody can read. It might disturb some children. Not
to mention their parents.

Sounds to me like the established media is supporting a system designed to
hamper their competion.


--Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
  PGP encrypted mail preferred.
  DES is dead! Please join in breaking RC5-56.
  http://rc5.distributed.net/