Re: Detweiler blocking

[analyst@netcom.com (Benjamin McLemore)]

> 
> 
> Benjamin McLemore says:
> > I must admit to a certain amount of amazement to the almost universal
> > consensus I have seen in this forum regarding censoring Detweiler's (or
> > whomever's) Usenet postings.
> 
> No one has proposed censoring his Usenet postings. What people have
> proposed is that they deny him the use of the remailers that they set
> up on their hardware. This is very different. 

[deleted]
> 
> I see nothing wrong with remailer operators taking steps to prevent
> Detweiler from using their equipment against their will. This is not
> censorship. Mr. Detweiler is still free to use Usenet any way he sees
> fit. It is simply the act of saying "Mr. Detweiler can't use MY
> REMAILER any way he sees fit."
> Perry

Sorry for the typo, of course I meant censoring Detweiler's Usenet
postings vis a vis the remailer network. I don't even want to know who
is sending messages through my remailer and they beter be encrypted so
that I can't know--this is the essence of the privacy that I think
remailers should provide and it is how I think we have to fight the
current authoritarian model. Yes, Detweiler wants the remailer's shut
down and some type og Big Brother/retina scanning/verification
approach so that he can be sure we're not al the same person. As such,
he is an enemy of what we stand for. And yet, he can use the
technologies we are developing just as well--so can the rest of the
poeple who are against our agenda and there is no way we could
distribute filter lists fast enough to keep them all out (especially
with port 25).

My point is--what harm have Detweiler's posts through the remailer's
done? I do not accept that they were really even harm--anybody reading
unmoderated Usenet newsgroups is wading through far more drivel on a
daily basis then the Perversion can manage to generate. It is
challenging this notion that they were harmful (and I am not doubting
that some net.czars--although hopefully not Netcom--would find them
so) that I am trying to do. 

WE must have privacy for everyone--even Detweiler. I agree with Perry
that Detweiler's right to sin ends when he uses my property, but I
only plan to use (and soon run) remailers where the text is encrypted
anyway. I certainly do not plan to filter messages based on a content
I can't even read. Thus, by design I wouldn't be able to filter him or
any other fools he might motivate to his irrational cause.

As to kiddie porn, what is my legal liability if all that passes
through my system is PGP-encrypted bits. Someone else will have to
open the envelope (I assume that the postal inspectors aren't
arresting all the postal workers in the chain of delivery of the crap
they are sending to BBS operators...)--I don't plan to be able to.

Benjamin

--
analyst@netcom.com