From: Information Security <guy@panix.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 16:27:24 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: cypherpunks missing from Usenet
Message-ID: <199712270822.DAA12498@panix2.panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



I know most of you don't use Usenet anymore...

Nevertheless, I'd appreciate any help.
---guy


#   From: guy+U2_Czars_suck@panix.com
#   Subject: Re: EFF Director calls for requiring digital signatures for Net access
#   Newsgroups: comp.org.cauce,comp.org.eff.talk
#   Followup-To: comp.org.cauce,comp.org.eff.talk
#   Organization: Information Security at NYC, Third Planet From the Sun

T. Max Devlin <mdevlin@eltrax.com> wrote:
:   On 20 Dec 1997 05:28:35 -0500, Cipher <cipher@mindspring.com> wrote:

:   >The CAUCE group is just getting started and *Digital Signatures* are
:   >mentioned in the same breath with anti-UCE techniques.  From knowing
:   >absolutely who everyone is to knowing absolutely what everyone is saying
:   >seems a logical progression.  I see the *Good users are known users*
:   >mentality as the leading edge of draconian restrictions on Usenet and
:   >e-mail that are in the works.

:   It is not a logical progression.

:   Nevertheless, civility (which is what we're trying to achieve)
:   requires a balance between individual "rights" of privacy and
:   public knowledge of who is saying what.

A "balance" between "privacy" and "public knowledge of who is saying what"???

Like the FBI wants a "balance" between the rights of people to use
cryptography and law enforcement concerns?

You are truly a nutcake.

    T. Max Devlin <mdevlin@eltrax.com> wrote:

:   This extremist view that to be able to identify who is saying something is
:   automatically the same as censorship is getting more and more ludicrous.

The US Supreme Court disagrees with you regarding anonymous speech.

    T. Max Devlin <mdevlin@eltrax.com> wrote:

:   Without rational examination of the issues, the ultimate solution will
:   inevitably be that the Internet is unusable for public discourse.

Imminent death of the Internet, film at 11.

An MIT study has shown civility is *unnatural* among heavy email users.

Even Russ Allbery will through out a "bullshit" and more now and then,
or do you want to argue about what "civility" means?

----

What does civility mean to Usenet II Czars?

It means deleting off-topic posts (which they've done), because they
are "abusive".

#   *   [usenet2] A New Virtual Community
#   *   From: Stephanie da Silva <arielle@bonkers.taronga.com>
#   *   Reply-To: usenet2@usenet.com
#   *   Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 03:12:04 -0500 (CDT)
#    
#   I'm somewhat disillusioned because two of my favorite newsgroups seem
#   to be plagued by a similar problem -- an increase in off-topic chatter.
#    
#   This has gone to the point on one of the groups
#   where some people have actually adopted an OFF-TOPIC keyword and use it
#   in subject headers.
#    
#   In a very recent discussion where I pointed out that this went against
#                                                        ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^
#   the very foundation of Usenet and that off-topic threads were 100% noise,
#   ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^
#   a user that has been posting less than a year and a half (from Netcom)
#   patiently explained to me how she felt the main appeal of the newsgroup
#   was its diverse nature and that she found the off-topic threads
#   "invigorating."
#    
#   So I guess my point is I wish there were some mechanism in place to
#   reinforce that newsgroups are focused discussion groups and not informal
#   chat rooms or coffee klatches.  People are not taking it to email the
#   way they tended to in the "good old days."
#    
#   I was just talking about this with someone in email.  She described an
#   incident that had happened on rec.arts.books.  Someone flamed (ironically
#   enough) Mike Godwin for posting off-topic.  She said Godwin's response
#           ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
#   was that rec.arts.books was not a place for talking about books per se,
#   but a place where 'bookish' people could get together and chat.
#   
#   That pretty much sums up the point I was trying to make.

What else? What have the U2 Czars controlling CAUCE also done?

Not allowed the admin of a one-way remailer who returned the required
token for posting to comp.org.cauce to post here; no explanation given
despite repeated requests.

That's not "civil", Max.

----

    T. Max Devlin <mdevlin@eltrax.com> wrote:

:   Authentication is a required capability of any multi-user communications system.

Apparently you have never heard of pay-phones, 900 re-dial services, etc.

:   The question is not whether we can get away without it (in the long run, I fear,
:   we cannot).  The question is how we can implement it in a rational fashion that
:   isn't too slanted one way or the other between personal and public desires.

The question is: how can control-freaks like you
be beaten to a bloody pul^W^W^W^W back?

---guy