[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:54:05 -0800 (PST)
> From: Sandy Sandfort <[email protected]>
>
> Sir,
Please don't assume anything about my sex. Do you think only men know
how to use nym servers?
> I asked you to keep our communications private. You did not do
> so. I have nothing further to say to you.
I understand your desire to keep this secret. Believe me, I know this
must be an unpleasant situation for you.
Nonetheless, I believe this issue is so important and relevant to the
cypherpunks community that it outweighs your wish to keep it a secret.
I respect the difficulty of your situation, and would not try to air
this issue if I did not think exposing it immediately was of the
utmost importance.
Please, try to see this from as disinterested a point of view as
possible. I know it's difficult being both the moderator and one of
the parties involved in the dispute. However, we have a situation
here where threats of libel have suppressed not only technical
discussion of the actual software in question (which actually wouldn't
be much of a discussion), but even discussion on the mechanics of
moderation, something highly relevant to the list. Worse yet, people
subscribed to the list DON'T EVEN KNOW that this discussion is being
suppressed.
We need to get this issue out, even if only in part. If my article
was unacceptable, can you at least tell me which parts I should
eliminate. I am willing to censor as much of it as I need to to get
it published, as long as my main point gets accross. Surely you must
agree that my main point doesn't have anything to do with the piece of
software involved, right? Has it really come down to a situation
where even the *fact* that some articles are being suppressed must be
suppressed?
Please. Think of the purpose of cypherpunks. Do the right thing. I
am flexible. I will edit my article even more. But please, tell me
what I can do to get it onto the main list. People need to know what
is happening. I append my article here once again. If you really
cannot accept it, at least tell me what I can change to get it
accepted.
Thank you.
- --
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Subject: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation
Well, folks, tonight I have witnessed the frightening dangers of
moderation and censorship first-hand, and would like to tell you what
has happened. I think there is an important lesson to be learned from
these incidents.
Before I explain what has happened, I want to make one thing
absolutely clear. Though I've thought the moderation of cypherpunks
was a terrible idea from the start and am even more convinced of it
now, I don't assign any blame to Sandy. I believe he offered to
moderate the list with the best of intentions, and I sincerely
appreciate his efforts to try to revive what was once a fantastic
mailing list, even if in my opinion those efforts have backfired.
Sandy has been a valuable advocate of cypherpunk beliefs and a lively
contributor to cypherpunks list for a long time. Though the
moderation experiment has resulted in some terrible consequences, we
can't blame him for what has happened. If the events I have witnessed
tonight occured with such a high-standing member of the cypherpunks
community in charge, the cause of them can only be the very nature of
moderation and censorship. I don't think any of us could have done
much better in Sandy's shoes.
Now, what happened tonight? As some of you may recall, a month or so
ago I vehemently argued against the elimination of the
cypherpunks-unedited mailingt list. Some people (though no one
associated with toad.com) were claiming that 3 mailing lists might be
too much load, and that having cypherpunks and cypherpunks-flames
would be enough. I argued that not only would the delay of waiting
for a decision put alternate cypherpunks moderators at a disadvantage,
it would make it farm more difficult to convince people of the
moderator's honesty as there would be no guarantee that messages made
it to either list. Fortunately, cypherpunks-unedited did get created
(it seems no one "in charge" ever intended not to create it).
Well, as it turns out, a number of messages have made it neither to
cypherpunks nor to cypherpunks-flames. Making matters worse, however,
not only are certain messages being suppressed from both lists, but
even messages mentioning that fact get suppressed from both the
cypherpunks and the cypherpunks-flames lists!
Here's exactly what happened. I was beginning to believe that Dmitri
Vulis had sent an (admitedly objectionable) message to the cypherpunks
mailing list, but that the message had gone to neither the cypherpunks
nor the cypherpunks-flames lists. Since I was under the impression
that every article was supposed to go to one list or the other, and
many people probably still believe that, I mentioned this somewhat
startling fact on the cypherpunks mailing list, I believe in response
to a post by Tim May on the same subject.
Tim replied (in a message Cc'ed to cypherpunks--though I don't think
it went anywhere but to -unedited), asking me in the message, "Can you
send to the list, with a copy to me, the articles CENSOREDCENSOREDCENS
OREDCENSOREDCENSORE?" I therefore went back through my mail archives
and found a copy of the message that I believed had gone to neither
mailing list. I sent it to Tim and to cypherpunks. I prepended a few
paragraphs in which I asked people to confirm that the message had
gone to neither mailing list. Among other things in those paragraphs,
I stated that Vulis's message was "verifiably false". It was clear
from the context that I was forwarding this message to ask people
which lists it had gone to, not because I believed the content to be
correct or even at all convincing or interesting. That message I
sent, quoting Vulis's, immediately follows this message, after the
line '========'.
Then, tonight, I received a message from Sandy, which I include below
a second '========' marker. In that letter, Sandy had explicitly
aknowledged not only that he had sent Vulis's letter to neither
mailing list, but that he wouldn't send my letter to either mailing
list, either! He claimed that he couldn't forward Vulis's message
because it was libel, and accused me of committing libel simply by
quoting Vulis's message, even though I explicitly stated that Vulis's
message was verifiably false.
Well, this travesty must exposed, even if I can't make known all the
details for fear of libel charges. I am therefore forwarding
everything I can to the cypherpunks mailing list, for all to see. As
you can see, Vulis made unfounded and incorrect charges that a
particular system contained a security hole. Believe me, if I could
get into the details of the case I could convince you easily that his
claim is not true. However, since even quoting that claim apparently
opens me up to charges of libel, I can't give you the details. Thus,
I have censored (by overriting original text with the letters
CENSORED) any portion of quoted messages that might give you an
indication of what system Vulis actually claimed had a security hole.
This censorship should not, however, affect my main point, and the
lesson that I hope we can all take away from this. When it comes down
to it, the details of this case do not matter. What does matter is
that even when the "good guys" attempt benign censorship, it can have
frighteningly far-reaching effects on people's ability to discuss
otherwise reasonable topics such as the mechanics of the cypherpunks
list. I generally dislike censorship and moderation, but the
consequences of the cypherpunks experiment have gone far beyond
anything I could have imagined.
In closing, let me reiterate that I don't think most of this is
Sandy's, John's, or anyone else's fault. Given the knowledge I have
of this case, I believe Sandy has unwittingly found himself ensnarled
in a nasty legal situation where, for fear of legal reprisal he must
block articles that he has a moral obligation to send to
cypherpunks-flames. I certainly don't envy his position.
[To moderator Sandy: I believe we must get the content of this
message to the main cypherpunks mailing list. I have done everything
I can to ensure that the message contains no libel. If, for some
reason, you still can't send it on to the main cypherpunks mailing
list, can you please tell me specifically which parts cause problems.
I will the CENSOR them out and try again. This message contains
important, highly relevant information for the cypherpunks community.
Please help me do what it takes to get it accepted by the moderation
process. Thanks.]
========
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Chain: nym=antimod
In-reply-to: <v03007802af21505d61f5@[207.167.93.63]> ([email protected])
Subject: Re: Is Sandy really censoring criticisms of CENSORCENSOREDCENSOREDC?
Okay, I went through my old mail, and I'm fairly sure this is the
message. I'm convinced it never went to the flames list, and now that
I've found out I'm on the -unedited list after all, I think it
probably didn't go to the regular cypherpunks list either. Can people
on the various lists confirm this for me?
Given the total lack of technical content, the flamey nature of the
article, and the fact that it is verifiably false (CENSOREDCENSOREDC
ENSOREDCENSOREDCE), I can see people arguing it should have gone to
- -flames (though I would probably disagree). However, I don't want to
debate that. What I object to more strongly and think is wrong is the
fact that it went to *neither* list.
A lot of people out there are subscribing to the cypherpunks-flames
and cypherpunks lists thinking that they will see everything that gets
rejected (albeit with a substantial delay). If this is not the case,
it should be made clear. Otherwise, it's not moderation, but
dishonesty.
- --
>From [email protected] Thu Jan 30 17:26:50 1997
From: [email protected] (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Subject: Security alert!!!
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 97 16:15:21 EST
Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA18833; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:17:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uu.psi.com (uu.psi.com [38.9.86.2]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA18824; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:16:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP;
id AA02017 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 97 16:57:10 -0500
Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf)
via UUCP; Thu, 30 Jan 97 16:19:19 EST
for [email protected]
Comments: All power to the ZOG!
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Precedence: bulk
Lines: 19
WARNING: There's a rogue trojan horse out there on the internet CENSOREDCENS
OREDCENSOREDCENSOREDCEN. It's actually a hacked-up version of CENSOR with a
backdoor, which allows hackers (or whoever knows the backdoor) to steal credit
card numbers and other confidentil information on the Internet.
Be careful! Always use encryption. Do not send confidential information 9such
as passwords and credit card numbers) to any site running the trojan horse
CENSOREDCENS.
In general, beware of "snake oil" security products and hacked-up versions of
free software.
Please repost this warning to all relevant computer security forums.
- ---
<a href="mailto:[email protected]">Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM</a>
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
========
X-From: [email protected] Sat Feb 08 00:56:23 1997
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 16:45:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Sandy Sandfort <[email protected]>
To: Against Moderation <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is Sandy really censoring criticisms of CENSOREDCENSOREDCENSORE?
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SANDY SANDFORT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hi,
On 7 Feb 1997, Against Moderation wrote:
> What I object to more strongly and think is wrong is the
> fact that it went to *neither* list.
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. As soon as I can
arrange it with John, I am going to stop moderating the list.
In the interim, I *will not* be sending your post onto either
the Flames or the Moderated lists. This is done for legal
reason. As it is, you have already published a libel on the
unedited list by repeating Dimitri's libel. This exposes you to
legal liability, but as an anonymous poster, you are somewhat
insulated from the consequences of your act.
If you would like to PRIVATELY discuss this matter with me, I
would not mind going into more detail with you. Suffice it to
say, I any re-publication by me of Dimitri's libel would expose
John and myself to legal liability and could also act to
insulate Dimitri from liability as a result of CENSOREDCENSOREDCE
NSOREDCENDOREDCENDOREDC.
Take care,
S a n d y
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
========
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMvwRPoCHQnqYPZ9VAQF60gQAizQlcgLKHMviZclZZtGEHm0AcWjjhijr
bj809X1/70+KUzfHXJ9vVt4Jc5nqJblKlWiuux/KnSsnAXT8C0pyaUpp1vARYE2C
w78pMfZxNQRuo/0IYuHfEb/rhdGieLQbqFGkpN3gj9iRzU4jOE7/PFejJKLYckDT
7aP0LdeRS/8=
=wCgj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----