From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 13:04:37 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Hate speech and censorship
In-Reply-To: <v03102802b0c3484bd59d@[206.170.115.5]>
Message-ID: <a3H4He53w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Lance Cottrell <loki@infonex.com> writes:

> At 10:58 AM -0500 12/20/97, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> <SNIP>
> >I also wouldn't trust Lance Cottrell.  He's selling privacy for the $$, not
> >for the ideology; he'll bend over the moment he thinks there's more $$ in
> >bending over, which is usually the case.
> >Remember how Sameer Parekh's C2Net used to try to peddle a "privacy ISP"
> >because he failed miserable and diversified into peddiling shitty software
> >and making idiotic legal threats? He happily pulled plugs bases on content,
> >while at the same time stating in court papers that he doesn't censor conten
> >What a pathological liar.
> >
>
> I am very glad some helpful anonymous individual forwarded this note to me.
> These days I only read a filtered version of the Cypherpunks, although I
> host one of the unfiltered nodes, and Dr. Vulis has been in my kill file
> for some time.

I presume he won't see this response then.

> I am a bit startled at his assumption that because I charge for my services
> that I would bend at the first sign of trouble or pressure. Allow me to

No, this is not my reasoning.  I've concluded, based on the analysis of
numerous quotes from Cottrell, that he sounds like an opponent of anonymity,
privacy, and free speech (witness his attacks on "HipCrime", his censorship
of "spam" (the term now used by censors to describe any content they don't
approve of)  et al - just use DejaNews).  An "anti-spammer" selling "privacy"
services is a lot like a devout nun working as a prostitute to support
her convent - she does it for the money, but her heart won't be in it.

Of course I respect lance's right to hold whatever beliefs he chooses and
to oppose free speech. However I advise anyone against trusting a person
who states that he opposes "spam" (defined as any content he doesn't like).

If you use "Anonymizer", Lance will know who you are, and he states on his
web site that he will reveal your identity if you "abuse" his service (which
might well mean simply expressing an opinion that Lance doesn't like and
judges to be "spam").

if Lance Cottrell wants to salvage the remains of his credibility, he should
state unequivocally that he supports "spam" as defined by Chris Lewis.

[snip]
> Dr. Vulis' attack on Sameer was much worse than his attack on me. It is
> totally off base. Sameer handed off most of his "privacy ISP" business to
> me. The reason for this was not that it was failing, but that the software
> side of the business was so much more successful. About half his efforts
> were going toward a service generating about 10% of his revenues. Not to
> focus his efforts would have been very poor business practice.

As documented before, Sameer closed shop on C2net as a "privacy" ISP at
about the same time (Oct 96) as
a) Software Publishers Association sued him for software privacy and he
was claiming in court papers that he doesn't censor content (as well as
whining on this mailing list and begging for help)
b) he simultaneously pulled the plug on one of his subscribers because
he didn't like the contents of that subscibers's web page, which expressed
critical opinions about Timmy May.
This proves, in my opinion, that Sameer is a pathological liar.
Further his settlement with SPA was a miserable failure for him,

Sameer is also notorious for making legal threats against those who question
the security of the crypto software he peddles. The fact that he dispatches
his shysters to make threats, instead of even trying to answer our concerns
with facts, shows how much he himself believes in his products.

---

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