[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: fwee! are we having fun yet?
> This is an open letter to E. Hughes.
>
> Let me review my arguments for starting the group immediately.
>
> 5. No one other than the poster takes heat. The poster should not post
> if they are concerned about the risk.
I'm curious as to what good this will be then.
> Look, apparently you haven't got any heat on the Mycotronx postings,
> but wouldn't you feel a hell of a lot more comfortable if they
> *weren't* funneled through your single machine? Ask Steve Jackson what
> paranoid and degenerate agents can accomplish when they have an
> easily-identified, portable target and some vague suspicions! The 911
> document has all the criminality of a wedding announcement compared to
> the Mycotronx stuff! Don't these postings demonstrate there is an *immediate* need?
The distributed nature of a usenet group would be nice....
> have controversial postings to the group, starting out. Currently,
> though, I just think there is just no momentum without a group. Which
> comes first, the anonymous servers or the group? Obviously, the *group*!
Without controversial postings, no one will read the group. What is the point,
then?
> Here's my idea. For *now*, lets just use alt.whistleblower as a
> *clearinghouse* of material that was *already posted* elsewhere on the
> net. That is, nobody takes any personal risk. They just keep their eyes
> out for stuff that appears in other places that fits into the
> `whistleblowing' category and forwards it to that group. If there is
> any heat they just point to the original posting and say `I did nothing
> but forward it, don't talk to me about it.' (By the way, the Mycotronx
> posting is awesome whistleblower stuff, the kind that legends are made
> of, but I think it still might be a bit risky to post that to a Usenet
> group yet, even an `alt', even anonymously). Also, we can just forward
> interesting stuff from newspapers and magazines. No risk there. If
> anybody thinks they have a solid way to remain anonymous (we're talking
> about cypherpunks here, I'm sure they'll find a way) they can post
> *now* using old-fashioned methods.
Some time ago, I joined the bandwagon in opposing this "hasty" decision to
form the WB group. But, I like this idea. My reason for opposing it the first
time was that people's lives/jobs could be at stake. This might be a
germination point for the full-blown WB group, but without the risks to it's
contributers. I like this idea.
>
> What more can I say? Isn't the immediate need transparently clear?
> Does *anyone* read what I write? Am I nothing but a babbling, deranged
> lunatic? Just *watch* how fast I get a FAQ there, if it *ever* starts...
I'm reading it. And (for once?) I agree on this subject.
> There are now several hundred quasi-official cypherpunks, and I think a
> lot of them are agitated and itching for something to do! Not to
I know the feeling..... ;^)
+-----------------------+-----------------------------+---------+
| J. Michael Diehl ;-) | I thought I was wrong once. | PGP KEY |
| [email protected] | But, I was mistaken. |available|
| [email protected] | | Ask Me! |
| (505) 299-2282 +-----------------------------+---------+
| |
+------"I'm just looking for the opportunity to be -------------+
| Politically Incorrect!" <Me> |
+-----If codes are outlawed, only criminals wil have codes.-----+
+----Is Big Brother in your phone? If you don't know, ask me---+