Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News

[Dave Kinchlea <security@kinch.ark.com>]

On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, aga wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Dave Kinchlea wrote:
> 
> > 
> > So, you send all of your snail mail on post cards do you? No
> > sealed envelopes at all? Afterall you have nothing to hide, right?
> > 
> 
> Irrelevant analogy; snail.mail and e-mail.  The former is in physical
> form, and the latter usually never is.

No kidding, thanks for that information. Perhaps you can explain how it
is relevant?

> 
> > Of course not, privacy isn't about being a criminal, its about being
> > private. It is not akin to anonymity, *perhaps* those who work
> > anonymously have `something to hide' (still doesn't necessarily make
> > them a criminal, however), 
> 
> Anonymity on the InterNet is a Constitutional right, and is the
> sole supporter of freedom of speech.

Another irrelevant and completely inaccurate point. I utilize free
speech everyday yet I manage to do it without anonymity. 

> 
> > I'll let someone else field that as I feel
> > that anonymity is rarely a good thing. 
> > 
> 
> I disagree, anonymity is a good thing that will never
> be questioned by anybody, but your PGP will, and it
> is really not safe anyway.

ha ha ha, not by anybody huh. What world do you live in? I know plenty
of people who feel that if you must say something anonymously `you must
be hiding something, probably a criminal!'. I don't subscribe to this, I
feel that most people who post anonymously are just chicken-shits, but
that too is besides the point. It *is* questioned by many people.

 And as to PGP not being safe, perhaps you could expand a bit on this,
it hasn't hurt me or anyone I know, seems pretty safe to me. To address
what I assume your point was, it acts as a prefectly good sealed
envelope (and I believe quite a bit more), in the context of my original
reply, this is quite `safe'.

> 
> > Privacy, on the other hand, simply means that not everything I do is any
> > of your business and I would just as soon you not be tempted to even
> > bother trying to find out. 
> > 
> 
> If you do not send it to me by e-mail, I will never see it.

Nor will you see my post-card that I send to my mom, how does that
change the nature of a post-card OR email?

> Why are you so paranoid that someone is reading your e-mail?

Paranoid? No, but why make it easy for anyone to do so? 

> I never do anything criminal, so I could give a shit less if
> everybody reads all of my fucking mail.

so how is it different, besides being electronic, from snail mail? I
repeat, why don't you use post-cards exclusively for mail? Oh yes, that
is `print', a totally different thing, geesh.

> 
> > Of course, if all of your personal mail (including financial statements
> > etc) is sent on post cards, then (while I think you would be crazy) I
> > will at least admit you are consistent. Else, I think you need to look
> > hard at the logic you are using.
> > 
> 
> Again, inconsistant analogy.  This is nothing but photons in it's
> ultimate form, and it will never see paper.  Anything that _you_
> print is not attributable to me, and any e-mail printed by you
> would never be acceptable as a court exhibit.

You appear to be confused, I look at what I wrote and I see nothing at
all that mentions courts. I am talking about personal privacy and the
analogy is not at all inconsistent. (and paper mail is nothing but atoms
in it's ultimate form, so what?)
> 
> stop getting cyberspace mixed up with print.

Why do you think there is something magical about `cyberspace'? Privacy
is privacy, period. Communication is communication, period. There is no
reason to differentiate private communication via print and private
communication via cyberspace. Both are desirable for exactly the same
reasons. 

 > 
> why do you put that cypherpunks address in the header?
> just where did this e-mail originate from?

Thats how it landed on my plate, thats where I send it back, seems
reasonable to me.
 
cheers, kinch