[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
cypherpunks missing from Usenet
I know most of you don't use Usenet anymore...
Nevertheless, I'd appreciate any help.
---guy
# From: [email protected]
# Subject: Re: EFF Director calls for requiring digital signatures for Net access
# Newsgroups: comp.org.cauce,comp.org.eff.talk
# Followup-To: comp.org.cauce,comp.org.eff.talk
# Organization: Information Security at NYC, Third Planet From the Sun
T. Max Devlin <[email protected]> wrote:
: On 20 Dec 1997 05:28:35 -0500, Cipher <[email protected]> wrote:
: >The CAUCE group is just getting started and *Digital Signatures* are
: >mentioned in the same breath with anti-UCE techniques. From knowing
: >absolutely who everyone is to knowing absolutely what everyone is saying
: >seems a logical progression. I see the *Good users are known users*
: >mentality as the leading edge of draconian restrictions on Usenet and
: >e-mail that are in the works.
: It is not a logical progression.
: Nevertheless, civility (which is what we're trying to achieve)
: requires a balance between individual "rights" of privacy and
: public knowledge of who is saying what.
A "balance" between "privacy" and "public knowledge of who is saying what"???
Like the FBI wants a "balance" between the rights of people to use
cryptography and law enforcement concerns?
You are truly a nutcake.
T. Max Devlin <[email protected]> wrote:
: This extremist view that to be able to identify who is saying something is
: automatically the same as censorship is getting more and more ludicrous.
The US Supreme Court disagrees with you regarding anonymous speech.
T. Max Devlin <[email protected]> wrote:
: Without rational examination of the issues, the ultimate solution will
: inevitably be that the Internet is unusable for public discourse.
Imminent death of the Internet, film at 11.
An MIT study has shown civility is *unnatural* among heavy email users.
Even Russ Allbery will through out a "bullshit" and more now and then,
or do you want to argue about what "civility" means?
----
What does civility mean to Usenet II Czars?
It means deleting off-topic posts (which they've done), because they
are "abusive".
# * [usenet2] A New Virtual Community
# * From: Stephanie da Silva <[email protected]>
# * Reply-To: [email protected]
# * Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 03:12:04 -0500 (CDT)
#
# I'm somewhat disillusioned because two of my favorite newsgroups seem
# to be plagued by a similar problem -- an increase in off-topic chatter.
#
# This has gone to the point on one of the groups
# where some people have actually adopted an OFF-TOPIC keyword and use it
# in subject headers.
#
# In a very recent discussion where I pointed out that this went against
# ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^
# the very foundation of Usenet and that off-topic threads were 100% noise,
# ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^
# a user that has been posting less than a year and a half (from Netcom)
# patiently explained to me how she felt the main appeal of the newsgroup
# was its diverse nature and that she found the off-topic threads
# "invigorating."
#
# So I guess my point is I wish there were some mechanism in place to
# reinforce that newsgroups are focused discussion groups and not informal
# chat rooms or coffee klatches. People are not taking it to email the
# way they tended to in the "good old days."
#
# I was just talking about this with someone in email. She described an
# incident that had happened on rec.arts.books. Someone flamed (ironically
# enough) Mike Godwin for posting off-topic. She said Godwin's response
# ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
# was that rec.arts.books was not a place for talking about books per se,
# but a place where 'bookish' people could get together and chat.
#
# That pretty much sums up the point I was trying to make.
What else? What have the U2 Czars controlling CAUCE also done?
Not allowed the admin of a one-way remailer who returned the required
token for posting to comp.org.cauce to post here; no explanation given
despite repeated requests.
That's not "civil", Max.
----
T. Max Devlin <[email protected]> wrote:
: Authentication is a required capability of any multi-user communications system.
Apparently you have never heard of pay-phones, 900 re-dial services, etc.
: The question is not whether we can get away without it (in the long run, I fear,
: we cannot). The question is how we can implement it in a rational fashion that
: isn't too slanted one way or the other between personal and public desires.
The question is: how can control-freaks like you
be beaten to a bloody pul^W^W^W^W back?
---guy