Re: Banning any subscriber

[tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)]

Jim Choate has raised some questions about the nature of the List,
about its privacy, and has said that some of us are trying to scare
Detweiler with phony AIDS test results.

Here are my responses to these questions. I suppose I'd best copy the
Cypherpunks list as well, though there's been too much noise lately
about Detweiler, by Detweiler, and for Detweiler. Oh well.


> I want to thank everyone for their repsonce to my earlier mail. I do have
> some questions however.
> 
> 1. CypherPunks supports crypto so people cant tamper w/ my mail but you want
>    to censor somebody at the source. How can you support this?

Personally, I don't support it, and only a few folks have publically called for
it, as is their right in a forum like ours. Their concern is likely
that a single person can in fact bring down a list, can be so
disruptive that the S/N drops to an unacceptable level. 

A better solution, if the CPU at Toad can handle the extra load, is
the filtering software used now on the Extropians list. Subscribers
can filter out threads they don'e want to see, users, etc. This may be
coming to the Cypherpunks list.

Please note that Eric Hughes never removed L. Dewtweiler from the list
(nor anyone else, so far as I know). In fact, Detweiler requested that
he be unsubscribed. He may or may not be subscribed under another
account name, and, in any case, he seems to see some posts.

And he bombards us every night with his missives.

> 2. Everyone says this list is private. Nowhere has this EVER been mentioned
>    in any conversation or info that I have read. The implication in all the
>    posts, print articles, and talk at the local group meet led me to believe
>    CypherPunks was a public forum for discussion and implimentation of crypto
>    related material. Was I misunderstanding something?

The list is not "private" in the sense of being a deep, dark secret.
Instructions on how to join are easily available. But most mailing
lists have a different "feel," a different sense of "community," than
mere newsgroups have. Newsgroups encourage casual drop-ins who don't
bother to read the traffic, but who just fire off a few posts and then
are gone; at least with mailing lists it takes some small effort to
get on and off them.

We've had debates every few months about mailing list vs. newsgroup,
and I can't stop this debate from happening again. There are reasons
pro and con to have Cypherpunks a mailing list, and mailing lists
continue to flourish for a variety of reasons.

> 3. Sine at least part of the networks and hardware the mail list is used on
>    is publily funded how can you construe it as private w/o some form of
>    moderator or subscriction contract?

If a car happens to drive on a public street are all rights to privacy
lost? If a phone call is made and part of the signal path includes a
publically-subsidized link, is all privacy lost? Is your e-mail
subject to inspection by the authorities merely because it passes
through systems they control?

Ultimately, this is why we support encryption and free markets. (Well,
many of us support free markets.) In the meantime, the Electronic
Communication Privacy Act protects e-mail against certain kinds of
seizures. It's not clear (to me) what this means for "quasi-private"
mailing lists, but at least it may provide some legal defense should
government agents cite discussions on this list as evidence of
sedition, treason, conspiracy, etc.

> 4. The responces to L.D. about mail-bombs and posing as a AIDS lab is much
>    worse and more troublesome to me than anything I have seen L.D. post. Not
>    only is some of the actions proposed criminal but I fail to see how a
>    group which relies on its reputation can support or condone such comments.


Hold on there, pardner! That post you are referring to was yet another
one of Detweiler's own "an12070" posts! Even if there wasn't
compelling circumstantial evidence--cited by so many people here--that
S. Boxx = The Executioner = Psychopunk = Zen Master = an12070 = L.
Detweiler, then this latest rant would _still_ have the stylistic
earmarks of a put-on.

Read it again, if you can stomach it, and bear this in mind. 

I hope this helps.

--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.