CALL FOR CENSORSHIP Re: A modest proposal - robocancel all of these "mixmaster" things.
fathers...@dragoncon.net
wrote:
>In article <8mlk57$kan$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>, Wotan <wotan@databasix> wrote:
>>In article <8mlhgb$qg3$0...@pita.alt.net>,
>>Karl Denninger <ka...@FS.Denninger.Net> posted without thought:
>>
>>>In article <e5d768b90a82c5ff...@mixmaster.shinn.net>,
>>>freedom <anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net> wrote:
>>>>Bryan Lang ......
>>>
>>>
>>>Ok folks.
>>>
>>>I've watched this war going on in several groups now for three years.
>>>
>>>Its time to stop it.
>>>
>>>What do you folks think about unleashing a robotic canceller?
>>>
>>>Anyone got the guts to run one against these groups to kill off all the
>>>"anonymous" posts?
>>
>>Well, we used to have an off-topic/spam cancelor in az.*. Seems to have
>>ended in the past year or so.
>>
>>However, if someone were to send me the correct software and the regulars
>>of az.* wanted it - I could probably arrange for the BS to be canceled.
>
>I'll get working on the code (its a modification of my "clean news"
>software, since that requires a real news feed to operate.)
>
>When its done I'll make it available to anyone who wants it. Its up to you
>to find a Unix box on which you can install and run it; it will work, when
>done, from anywhere that can get an NNTP connection, will scan once every
>few minutes for new articles in the group(s) you designate, and if it finds
>articles from anonymous remailers it will issue cancels.
>
>I'm tired of this shit.
>
>You folks want a fix, you're gonna get a technical one that will absolutely
>solve the problem.
And is the "problem" of all of the off-topic spew from AOL accounts
going to be addressed as well? Such as the constant flaming from PangK
and his various personas?
Or is the censorship only going to be selective?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
Any address shown in the From header is unverified.
Karl Denninger
Of course not. He posts from a verifyable address with a place that
complaints can be sent. You, Mr. Gutless wonder, do not.
>Or is the censorship only going to be selective?
Quit posting from remailers and your problem will disappear.
The only "selective" censorship is that pussies like you will have to come
out in the open and make your allegations from TRACEABLE accounts with
TRACEABLE identities.
I bet the crap drops by 90% within a day of this software going online.
--
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net Cost-effective solutions on the Internet
http://childrens-justice.org Working to protect children's rights
Wilbur Streett
>>And is the "problem" of all of the off-topic spew from AOL accounts
>>going to be addressed as well? Such as the constant flaming from PangK
>>and his various personas?
>
>Of course not. He posts from a verifyable address with a place that
>complaints can be sent. You, Mr. Gutless wonder, do not.
Sorry Karl, complaints to AOL about DEATH THREATS don't cause a stop to
postings.
Wilbur
--------------------------------------------
Putting A Human Face On Technology ;-)
--------------------------------------------
Literally! http://www.TheFaceOf.com
fathers-rights
accounts
>>going to be addressed as well? Such as the constant flaming
from PangK
>>and his various personas?
>
>Of course not. He posts from a verifyable address with a place
that
>complaints can be sent. You, Mr. Gutless wonder, do not.
>
>
>Quit posting from remailers and your problem will disappear.
>
>The only "selective" censorship is that pussies like you will
have to come
>out in the open and make your allegations from TRACEABLE
accounts with
>TRACEABLE identities.
>
>I bet the crap drops by 90% within a day of this software going
online.
>
>--
>--
>Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids
Rights Activist
>http://www.denninger.net Cost-effective solutions on the
Internet
>http://childrens-justice.org Working to protect children's
rights
>
>
This Karl Denninger seems to be advocating the selected censorship of opinions posted
through anonymous remailing services. His grounds for doing so: that he has no ISP abuse
desk to bombard with complaints if he doesn't agree with the content of your post.
He is threatening to unleash a bot which will cancel any posts originating from anon
remailers, whether or not they're topical to the newsgroup....while allowing other posts
through, despite whether or not they're off topic. Oh, and he's threatening to do this in an
unmoderated newsgroup. Granted, many of the major ISPs don't even accept cancels, but
can't something be done about such blatant censorship?
Karl is yet another one of Ken Pangborn's sock-puppets. Ken Pangborn and his friends like to
get together and barrage ISPs with complaints when they don't agree with what you post.
They've sent over 300 complaints to my ISP in an effort to have my father's rights web pages
pulled.
Karl Denninger
Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
>ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger) wrote:
>
>>>And is the "problem" of all of the off-topic spew from AOL accounts
>>>going to be addressed as well? Such as the constant flaming from PangK
>>>and his various personas?
>>
>>Of course not. He posts from a verifyable address with a place that
>>complaints can be sent. You, Mr. Gutless wonder, do not.
>
>postings.
>
>Wilbur
Try the police. REAL Death threats are felonious, and a traceable address
makes it possible to prosecute.
Karl Denninger
fathers-rights <anon...@cotse.com> wrote:
>He is threatening to unleash a bot which will cancel any posts originating from anon
>remailers, whether or not they're topical to the newsgroup....while allowing other posts
>through, despite whether or not they're off topic. Oh, and he's threatening to do this in an
>unmoderated newsgroup. Granted, many of the major ISPs don't even accept cancels, but
>can't something be done about such blatant censorship?
Technology. A wonderful thing.
(And no, nothing can be done about it. Except bitching to the user's ISP.
I *KNOW* I don't have one I can run this from, but heh, if I post the code,
it just might get used :-)
I can, of course, test it against MY OWN posts with impunity, since I can
cancel my own stuff. That's the best part - testing is easy and legitimate.
>Karl is yet another one of Ken Pangborn's sock-puppets. Ken Pangborn and his friends like to
>get together and barrage ISPs with complaints when they don't agree with what you post.
>They've sent over 300 complaints to my ISP in an effort to have my father's rights web pages
>pulled.
Bawhahahhahahahaha!
Why don't you start with posting from your own account, whoever you might
be? How can someone send 300 complaints to an ISP when we don't know who
you are?
Mr. Mythical wimp, thou are you.
As for being Pangborn's sock puppet, get a grip. Ken and I no more get
along than Dean Tong and I.
I'm just tired of your bullshit coming from anonymous remailers and making
entire groups 90% full of your trash.
Wilbur Streett
>In article <399047c8....@news.monmouth.com>,
>Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
>>ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger) wrote:
>>
>>>>And is the "problem" of all of the off-topic spew from AOL accounts
>>>>going to be addressed as well? Such as the constant flaming from PangK
>>>>and his various personas?
>>>
>>>Of course not. He posts from a verifyable address with a place that
>>>complaints can be sent. You, Mr. Gutless wonder, do not.
>>
>>Sorry Karl, complaints to AOL about DEATH THREATS don't cause a stop to
>>postings.
>>
>>Wilbur
>
>Try the police. REAL Death threats are felonious, and a traceable address
>makes it possible to prosecute.
I contacted the local police, both from where the threat came from and my
local town. I contacted the FBI, with complete documentation of the threat
to me, and to the four or five other guys that had been threatened. The
local police told me that since the FBI was in it, they wouldn't do
anything about it.
Months later, no response.. and the guys making the threat were laughing in
the newsgroup.. how my reporting it didn't mean shit.. how the threats
weren't considered real, and I suggested that they post the same threat to
pres...@whitehouse.gov and I got a call from the FBI telling me that the
Secret Service knew Carlos and wanted to talk with me about it..
But when I went to have lunch with the guy that owns the local ISP, he was
busy with the FBI because they were after the guy that had released the
Melissa virus just 3 days before.. from my POP.
The Secret Service agent informed me that Carlos was a real threat, and
that I should not post to the alt.law-enforcement group. The agent
declared "Carlos" as a known entity, and even admitted that he had been
involved with actions from the FBI. But the threats didn't stop, Carlos
went on to threaten other people.. and then we got an unconfirmed message
that Carlos was a 12 year old kid and that they were going to confiscate
his computer, and the nonsense stopped.
In other words, none of them did their job, but the hunt down the kid that
took advantage of the known hole in Outlook that Microsoft didn't bother to
fix for more than 4 years.. in a few days. Death threats to multiple
people.. no response. The Melissa Virus, and they hunt the guy down in 3
days.. and he's in jail.
But then there's Bob Cheney..
Charlie
> ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger) wrote:
>
> >In article <399047c8....@news.monmouth.com>,
> >Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
> >>ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger) wrote:
> >>
> >>>>And is the "problem" of all of the off-topic spew from AOL accounts
> >>>>going to be addressed as well? Such as the constant flaming from PangK
> >>>>and his various personas?
> >>>
> >>>Of course not. He posts from a verifyable address with a place that
> >>>complaints can be sent. You, Mr. Gutless wonder, do not.
> >>
> >>Sorry Karl, complaints to AOL about DEATH THREATS don't cause a stop to
> >>postings.
> >>
> >>Wilbur
> >
> >Try the police. REAL Death threats are felonious, and a traceable address
> >makes it possible to prosecute.
>
> I contacted the local police, both from where the threat came from and my
> local town. I contacted the FBI, with complete documentation of the threat
> to me, and to the four or five other guys that had been threatened. The
> local police told me that since the FBI was in it, they wouldn't do
> anything about it.
Sounds just like a case that I reported about the death of a woman. Didn't
include any prior threats of her death though, but she sure is now dead and the
killer walks the streets a free man because neither the locals or the FBI
wishes to do anything about it. I guess they are too involved with their sick
definitions of criminals like "all" Disenfranchised Dads who they all know
won't fight back as long as their children are kept out in front of the
guilty. Somehow they have lost all reality as to what is a crime and who
perpetrates them. Thank our illustrious judicial bullshit system and the
cowards that have immunity behind all the profits they rake in.
Chas
--
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
Objects evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new
Guards for their future security"
Declaration of Independence
fathers...@dragoncon.net
wrote:
>In article <LO99KDM13674...@nuther-planet.net>,
> <fathers...@dragoncon.net> wrote:
>>On 7 Aug 2000 16:43:53 GMT ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger)
>>wrote:
>>
>>And is the "problem" of all of the off-topic spew from AOL accounts
>>going to be addressed as well? Such as the constant flaming from PangK
>>and his various personas?
>
>Of course not. He posts from a verifyable address
As do I.
> with a place that
>complaints can be sent. You, Mr. Gutless wonder, do not.
Ah. So you support censorship via mailbombing of ISP's abuse desks.
>
>>Or is the censorship only going to be selective?
>
>Quit posting from remailers and your problem will disappear.
I'll post how I choose. If you try to censor my postings through rogue
cancels, I suspect that it will be you who will disappear.
>
>The only "selective" censorship is that pussies like you will have to come
>out in the open and make your allegations from TRACEABLE accounts with
>TRACEABLE identities.
I already do so. "fathers...@dragoncon.net" is a replyable
address.
>
>I bet the crap drops by 90% within a day of this software going online.
I doubt it, since the majority of ISPs don't recognize cancels.
Karl Denninger
<fathers...@dragoncon.net> wrote:
>On 8 Aug 2000 15:54:23 GMT ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger)
>wrote:
>>>going to be addressed as well? Such as the constant flaming from PangK
>>>and his various personas?
>>
>>Of course not. He posts from a verifyable address
>
>As do I.
A lie. This post is from a remailer.
>> with a place that
>>complaints can be sent. You, Mr. Gutless wonder, do not.
>
>Ah. So you support censorship via mailbombing of ISP's abuse desks.
Irrelavent to the discussion at hand. Your diversionary tactics amuse me.
>>Quit posting from remailers and your problem will disappear.
>
>I'll post how I choose. If you try to censor my postings through rogue
>cancels, I suspect that it will be you who will disappear.
Oh really?
Since you don't exist, and can't claim your postings, you have no standing
to bitch when anonymous postings disappear.
You can anonymously post handbills on telephone poles. I can tear them
down. Since you refuse to take ownership of your words, you lack standing
to complain, since you have disavowed your posting by using that method of
doing so.
I can see it now "Karl cancelled my posting!" Of course, the complaint
will be about a posting that has in the headers "The identity of the poster
cannot be confirmed"......
The abuse desk over at Alt.Net will be amused.
Actually, I suspect Chris Caputo will laugh his ass off.
>>The only "selective" censorship is that pussies like you will have to come
>>out in the open and make your allegations from TRACEABLE accounts with
>>TRACEABLE identities.
>
>I already do so. "fathers...@dragoncon.net" is a replyable
>address.
So is "pres...@whitehouse.gov". Posting through an anonymous remailer
means that your CLAIMED from line may not be real, and there is no way for
you to take ownership of those words down the line.
Nice try, no donut.
>>I bet the crap drops by 90% within a day of this software going online.
>
>I doubt it, since the majority of ISPs don't recognize cancels.
Oh yes they do, particularly when the cancel is for the same message ID. I
happen to know how to RELIABLY block propagation of this shit provided I can
get a copy of it before it gets very far, and there isn't a thing you can
do about it.
Yes, even on those ISPs that don't honor cancels.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
>Any address shown in the From header is unverified.
The lie is put to your words right there by the remailer's own insertion.
Karl Denninger
Anonymous <nob...@remailer.privacy.at> wrote:
>On 9 Aug 2000 01:43:09 GMT ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger)
>wrote:
>
>You're an ignoramus, and what you're doing is net abuse.
Tough shit.
You're a sniveling coward without the gonads to post from your real account.
Or, as I like to say, "bite me".
>There are
>some people who use anonymity for a valid reason.
Yep.
But not in az.general, or fl.*, or most of these other groups subjected to
these flame wars. I'm tired of it and so are plenty of others. CUT THIS
SHIT OUT OR I WILL DO IT FOR YOU.
It was done in wi.*.
Successfully, I might add.
> I have posed
>questions to this group which I would not want to post from what you
>consider a "valid" address, for the simple reason that my ex-wife could
>possibly be reading and be prepared for any legal tactics I consider.
Tough tits.
>That doesn't give you the right to nuke my posts.
Sure it does. Just as you can tear down an anonymously posted flyer on a
telephone pole without repercussion.
>The guy was right, there's nothing different between anonymously
>remailing and using an AOL name, which can be set up and discarded in
>about 30 seconds, and which the author is under no obligation to "take
>ownership of".
Wrong, as the AOL post is tracable to a real person.
Further, tough tits.
The code will be developed if the crossposting and anonymous remailer abuse
does not stop. When it is done it will be made available to anyone who
wants to use it. Who runs it and on what groups will be entirely up to
THEM.
Once this genie is out of the bottle you who abuse are fucked as you will be
unable to stuff it back in. If you use anonymous remailers for legitimate
purposes you had damn well better get on the asses of those who abuse this
resource, and do it now. Your window of opportunity to keep this genie
corked up is running out.
Bluntly:
Stop the fscking flame wars in groups that are intended for regional
discussion and outnumbering, by 10:1, legitimate postings by abusing
these remailers.
You want to flame each other? Fine. Just don't use an anonymous
remailer.
You've been warned.
If you don't take this seriously I will give those who are pissed off about
the abuse the tools to nuke those who abuse all the way to Mars and leave
a thousand points of light on impact.
Just one more flame war conducted by anonymous remailer that makes a group
I read useless and I'll finish the modifications to my CLEAN-NEWS code,
which was written TWO YEARS AGO, to make this a reality. The original code
is DONE, and it WORKS, but it needs a full feed. This version will connect
by NNTP to any news server, anywhere.
That's a promise by the way, not a threat.
I figure it will take me no more than one day of coding and testing to
complete the modifications.
Your move.
fathers...@dragoncon.net
wrote:
>In article <2000080818...@anon.cotse.com>,
>fathers-rights <anon...@cotse.com> wrote:
>
>>He is threatening to unleash a bot which will cancel any posts originating from anon
>>remailers, whether or not they're topical to the newsgroup....while allowing other posts
>>through, despite whether or not they're off topic. Oh, and he's threatening to do this in an
>>unmoderated newsgroup. Granted, many of the major ISPs don't even accept cancels, but
>>can't something be done about such blatant censorship?
>
>Technology. A wonderful thing.
>
>(And no, nothing can be done about it. Except bitching to the user's ISP.
>I *KNOW* I don't have one I can run this from, but heh, if I post the code,
>it just might get used :-)
>
>I can, of course, test it against MY OWN posts with impunity, since I can
>cancel my own stuff. That's the best part - testing is easy and legitimate.
>
>>Karl is yet another one of Ken Pangborn's sock-puppets. Ken Pangborn and his friends like to
>>get together and barrage ISPs with complaints when they don't agree with what you post.
>>They've sent over 300 complaints to my ISP in an effort to have my father's rights web pages
>>pulled.
>
>Bawhahahhahahahaha!
>
>Why don't you start with posting from your own account, whoever you might
>be?
I am posting from my account. This is a legitimate, replyable address.
> How can someone send 300 complaints to an ISP when we don't know who
>you are?
My father's rights pages are being hosted by an ISP. Ken has sent over
300 complaints to that ISP, idiot.
>
>Mr. Mythical wimp, thou are you.
>
>As for being Pangborn's sock puppet, get a grip. Ken and I no more get
>along than Dean Tong and I.
Then why are you defending him by attempting to censor my posts, which
tell my side of the story?
>
>I'm just tired of your bullshit coming from anonymous remailers and making
>entire groups 90% full of your trash.
Wake up. It's an unmoderated newsgroup. Also, I don't post that
often... anon posting can be accessed by more than one person, you
know.
>
>--
>--
>Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
>http://www.denninger.net Cost-effective solutions on the Internet
>http://childrens-justice.org Working to protect children's rights
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
fathers...@dragoncon.net
wrote:
>In article <ERQQ7V9P3674...@nuther-planet.net>,
> <fathers...@dragoncon.net> wrote:
>>On 8 Aug 2000 15:54:23 GMT ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger)
>>wrote:
>>>>And is the "problem" of all of the off-topic spew from AOL accounts
>>>>going to be addressed as well? Such as the constant flaming from PangK
>>>>and his various personas?
>>>
>>>Of course not. He posts from a verifyable address
>>
>>As do I.
>
>A lie. This post is from a remailer.
Not a lie. My address is verifiable. Anyone doubting this can feel
free to send me e-mail to verify, and I'll be happy to send a response
to clear the matter up.
>
>>> with a place that
>>>complaints can be sent. You, Mr. Gutless wonder, do not.
>>
>>Ah. So you support censorship via mailbombing of ISP's abuse desks.
>
>Irrelavent to the discussion at hand. Your diversionary tactics amuse me.
Not irrelevant. As you stated above, your gripe against remailers is
that you have nobody to whine to when you disagree with what I'm
posting.
>
>>>Quit posting from remailers and your problem will disappear.
>>
>>I'll post how I choose. If you try to censor my postings through rogue
>>cancels, I suspect that it will be you who will disappear.
>
>Oh really?
>
>Since you don't exist, and can't claim your postings, you have no standing
>to bitch when anonymous postings disappear.
My postings aren't "anonymous". They have a legitimate e-mail address
behind them. I'm sorry you don't know the difference.
Kenneth Pangborn
fathers-rights <anon...@cotse.com> wrote in message
news:2000080818...@anon.cotse.com...
>
> ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger) wrote:
> >In article <LO99KDM13674...@nuther-planet.net>,
> > <fathers...@dragoncon.net> wrote:
> Denninger)
> >>wrote:
> >>
> accounts
> >>going to be addressed as well? Such as the constant flaming
> from PangK
> >>and his various personas?
> >
> that
> >complaints can be sent. You, Mr. Gutless wonder, do not.
> >
> >
> >
> have to come
> >out in the open and make your allegations from TRACEABLE
> accounts with
> >TRACEABLE identities.
> >
> online.
> >
> >--
> >Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids
> Rights Activist
> >http://www.denninger.net Cost-effective solutions on the
> Internet
> >http://childrens-justice.org Working to protect children's
> rights
> >
> >
>
opinions posted
> through anonymous remailing services. His grounds for doing so: that he
has no ISP abuse
> desk to bombard with complaints if he doesn't agree with the content of
your post.
>
from anon
> remailers, whether or not they're topical to the newsgroup....while
allowing other posts
> through, despite whether or not they're off topic. Oh, and he's
threatening to do this in an
> unmoderated newsgroup. Granted, many of the major ISPs don't even accept
cancels, but
> can't something be done about such blatant censorship?
>
his friends like to
> get together and barrage ISPs with complaints when they don't agree with
what you post.
> They've sent over 300 complaints to my ISP in an effort to have my
father's rights web pages
> pulled.
Moore you overestimate your importance in the grand scheme of things.
300? Maybe from 300 people. Most folks find out that anet shields you for
your abuse.
Kenneth Pangborn
news:HI09P07B3674...@nuther-planet.net...
> On 8 Aug 2000 20:00:22 GMT ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger)
> wrote:
> >In article <2000080818...@anon.cotse.com>,
> >fathers-rights <anon...@cotse.com> wrote:
> >>He is threatening to unleash a bot which will cancel any posts
originating from anon remailers, whether or not they're topical to the
newsgroup....while allowing other posts through, despite whether or not
they're off topic. Oh, and he's threatening to do this in an
unmoderated newsgroup. Granted, many of the major ISPs don't even accept
cancels, but can't something be done about such blatant censorship?
> >>Karl is yet another one of Ken Pangborn's sock-puppets. Ken Pangborn and
his friends like to get together and barrage ISPs with complaints when they
don't agree with what you post. They've sent over 300 complaints to my ISP
in an effort to have my father's rights web pages pulled.
> >Bawhahahhahahahaha!
> >Why don't you start with posting from your own account, whoever you might
>be?
> I am posting from my account. This is a legitimate, replyable address.
Uh, NO, David it is NOT. It is a fake screen name from an ANONYMOUS
REMAILER.
> > How can someone send 300 complaints to an ISP when we don't know who you
are?
> My father's rights pages are being hosted by an ISP. Ken has sent over
300 complaints to that ISP, idiot.
No I haven't David. I actually sent only a couple, LONG ago right after
you put it up. The folks at ANET responded that yuou had found a home where
your FORGED material was welcome. I and others gave up trying to reason with
those people long ago. If ANET got 300 complaints they were from 299 people
other than me!
> >Mr. Mythical wimp, thou are you.
> >As for being Pangborn's sock puppet, get a grip. Ken and I no more get
along than Dean Tong and I.
> Then why are you defending him by attempting to censor my posts, which
tell my side of the story?
> >I'm just tired of your bullshit coming from anonymous remailers and
making entire groups 90% full of your trash.
> Wake up. It's an unmoderated newsgroup. Also, I don't post that
often... anon posting can be accessed by more than one person, you
know.
__________________________________________________
> This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. Any
address shown in the From header is unverified.
_____________________________________________________
David says "It's ME, It's Me!"
Wilbur says "No it's not, prove it."
The comedy theatre continues.
Karl Denninger
<fathers...@dragoncon.net> wrote:
>On 9 Aug 2000 01:43:09 GMT ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger)
>wrote:
>>>>On 8 Aug 2000 15:54:23 GMT ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger)
>>>wrote:
>>>>>And is the "problem" of all of the off-topic spew from AOL accounts
>>>>>going to be addressed as well? Such as the constant flaming from PangK
>>>>>and his various personas?
>>>>
>>>>Of course not. He posts from a verifyable address
>>>
>>
>>A lie. This post is from a remailer.
>
>Not a lie. My address is verifiable. Anyone doubting this can feel
>free to send me e-mail to verify, and I'll be happy to send a response
>to clear the matter up.
>
>>
>>>>complaints can be sent. You, Mr. Gutless wonder, do not.
>>>
>>
>>Irrelavent to the discussion at hand. Your diversionary tactics amuse me.
>
>Not irrelevant. As you stated above, your gripe against remailers is
>that you have nobody to whine to when you disagree with what I'm
>posting.
>
>>
>>>
>>>cancels, I suspect that it will be you who will disappear.
>>
>>Oh really?
>>
>>Since you don't exist, and can't claim your postings, you have no standing
>>to bitch when anonymous postings disappear.
>
>My postings aren't "anonymous". They have a legitimate e-mail address
>behind them. I'm sorry you don't know the difference.
Oh, I know the difference.
You will disclaim whatever you want, when you want.
Get off the remailers, or watch your posts start disappearing.
Karl Denninger
<fathers...@dragoncon.net> wrote:
>On 8 Aug 2000 20:00:22 GMT ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger)
>wrote:
>>
>>Why don't you start with posting from your own account, whoever you might
>>be?
>
>I am posting from my account. This is a legitimate, replyable address.
No you're not. There is no evidence to support that, and in fact an
explicit disclaimer that the address from which this is CLAIMED to have come
is unverifyable.
There is no evidence available to back up who you might (or might not) be.
>> How can someone send 300 complaints to an ISP when we don't know who
>>you are?
>
>My father's rights pages are being hosted by an ISP. Ken has sent over
>300 complaints to that ISP, idiot.
So what? Your posting from behind a wall changes nothing there.
>>Mr. Mythical wimp, thou are you.
>>
>>As for being Pangborn's sock puppet, get a grip. Ken and I no more get
>>along than Dean Tong and I.
>
>Then why are you defending him by attempting to censor my posts, which
>tell my side of the story?
I'm not attempting to censor your posts. You are free to post your side of
the story from your ISP, where you cannot DISCLAIM your posts later on
because they are traceable.
>>I'm just tired of your bullshit coming from anonymous remailers and making
>>entire groups 90% full of your trash.
>
>Wake up. It's an unmoderated newsgroup. Also, I don't post that
>often... anon posting can be accessed by more than one person, you
>know.
You can post anonymously, but as a consequence I can claim I posted it with
your name on the FROM header and thus have the right to cancel it.
You can't take ownership of the posting, since you INTENTIONALLY avoided
having it be tracable. As a consequence ANYONE can legitimately cancel it
by simply saying "I sent that, and I have a right to cancel my own
messages."
There is nothing you can say or do in rebuttal to that, since you have the
absolute ability to post from OTHER than a remailer, where such a cancel
would be a clear violation of an ISPs AUP.
Cancelling a post from an anonymous remailer is not such a violation, as
there is no way to prove if the user sending the cancel is or is not the
poster of the original message.
Stephen K. Gielda
kenpa...@earthlink.net says...
> > >Of course not. He posts from a verifyable address with a place
> > that
> > >complaints can be sent. You, Mr. Gutless wonder, do not.
>
>
policies at http://anon.cotse.com/abusepolicies.html and you can mail
violations of those policies to ab...@cotse.com. If he abuses any of
those policies while posting from cotse, I ban him.
I'd say that fits the description of having a place to send complaints
and getting a result. But at the same time if he has not violated any of
those policies nothing is done.
/steve
PS: this is a reply to text not from the actual quoted message because
the original was not crossposted and I'm not chasing it.
--
Stephen K. Gielda
http://www.cotse.com
The Church of the Swimming Elephant
Have you gone to church today?
Karl Denninger
Since these articles that eminate from cotse (like 300 said posts in a
couple of days) cannot be traced to a person, and in fact I could post
from cotse with that same FROM line and it would be impossible to verify,
it is therefore impossible for anyone to verify if a CANCEL for said
articles came from the original author or not.
That is, if someone CANCELS such an anonymously posted message, there is no
way that anyone can complain to their ISP for doing so, since there is no
means of documenting and proving whether or not that cancel was from the
original author or not!
What happens when TWO people both claim to have written the article? Since
you intentionally strip the ability to trace such a message to its sender,
it becomes impossible for a person to claim that another cancelled their
message, since they can't prove authorship of the original.
Its really very simple:
You have the right to post anonymously.
Anyone may cancel anonymous postings without recourse, since by
definition if you post anonymously you cannot complain that
"your" messages were cancelled (you intentionally cloaked your
identity in making the original post, and thus have no means
to acquire the necessary standing to make the complaint)
I used to run an ISP and before that a Usenet machine (all the way back into
the mid 1980s). People would occasionally bitch that "their" anonymous
postings (at the time through Julf's remailer) were cancelled by one of
our users, and demand that I yank their account. I laughed loudly at such
demands, since by definition the act of posting through a remailer makes it
impossible to claim later on that the posting in question is yours.
Without the standing of authorship, you can't argue that "your" work was
destroyed.
Without standing, your complaint is not a complaint - its an act of
harassment and is, in fact, a TOS violation at *THE COMPLAINERS* ISP.
--
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net Cost-effective solutions on the Internet
http://childrens-justice.org Working to protect children's rights
In article <MPG.13fb41569...@news.supernews.com>,
Stephen K. Gielda
> Not relavent Stephen.
>
>
<snip bunch of babble>
Cancel away then.
/steve
Karl Denninger
Stephen K. Gielda <st...@cotseNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>> Not relavent Stephen.
>>
>>
><snip bunch of babble>
>
>Cancel away then.
>
>/steve
Gee, you got the point! :-)
I'm impressed. (seriously, that's not a snide comment)
I do understand the legitimate need for anonymous posting services. But
this is balanced by the fact that when it gets abused in certain areas,
it needs to be stopped.
Nobody with half a brain can argue that the current flame wars being
conducted via these remailers, and the SPECIFIC abuse in these groups,
is somehow "legitimate".
I have no quarrel with a place for such anonymous "whistleblower" activities
to take place, and a means to do so. But the regional newsgroups are not an
appropriate place for them, nor are the general discussion groups dealing
with some of these issues.
Several regional heirarchies have been completely laid waste by these
idiots. Some of them (wi.* specifically) have taken to *centralized*
retro-moderation to stop it.
There has to be a way to resolve this problem.
How about folks like you kill the ability to post through your remailers
to regional newsgroup hierarchies and other, high-conflict areas on an
as-needed basis? I would think you could do that without diluting their
usefulness for legitimate "whistleblowing".
Let's define a "rule set" here that is user-neutral and doesn't require that
you keep a database of *POSTERS*. How about:
1. If your software was asked to send more than, oh, two postings in
one day to any specific newsgroup that it would ban that group from
further postings for 24 hours.
2. Prohibit crossposting entirely.
3. Do not permit people to set the "FROM" header. It serves no purpose
in an anonymous environment. Instead set it to a robot on your
server that would reply with "the source is intentionally cloaked
and no person can lay claim to the content represented in any
message with this source address, as they have intentionally and
willfully shielded their identity."
That would pretty much shut off the abuse, but not prevent people using the
service for LEGITIMATE whistle-blowing and other activities where anonymous
posting is useful.
What 'ya think Stephen?
Stephen K. Gielda
> 1. If your software was asked to send more than, oh, two postings in
> one day to any specific newsgroup that it would ban that group from
> further postings for 24 hours.
Imagine if yours did that, you'd be banned by now.
>
> 2. Prohibit crossposting entirely.
Did that for a year, didn't make a difference, people just separate post.
Non-crossposting fragments cross group discussions also. Cotse is
limited to three groups when crossposting, that is pretty strict.
>
> 3. Do not permit people to set the "FROM" header. It serves no purpose
> in an anonymous environment. Instead set it to a robot on your
> server that would reply with "the source is intentionally cloaked
> and no person can lay claim to the content represented in any
> message with this source address, as they have intentionally and
> willfully shielded their identity."
The email address is always <anon...@cotse.com> that cannot be changed.
There is no rule saying anyone posting as "The Hobbit" is guaranteed to
be the only "The Hobbit" on usenet.
Anyway, there is a balance with functionality as many use this for daily
conversation. Imagine the same restrictions on your posting.
Before you claim you can be tracked because of your host, that isn't a
given. Understand that there is no way to positively tag a users ID to
an IP with any ISP, nor should there ever be (See
http://www.cotse.com/column1.htm for my reasoning on why).
I could come from any ISP and not be traceable to a person. That is
because of the technology. As long as I can log into another machine
from the one I sit at this will not go away. You can't say, that is a
valid account so I know exactly who you are. This is a valid account and
a valid name, is it really mine? Do you know for sure? 100%?
Anyway, cancel wars involve DtR, in case you are not aware, DtR reposts
cancelled posts (see news.admin.net-abuse.usenet). What this ends up
causing is a worse mess than the one you have. It's cleaner to kill
file. Imagine everyone cancelling what they don't want to see.
Anyway, check the BI on his posts from cotse, if he violates it I'll ban
him. Also check his posts against our policies, if he violates them
we'll act.
Later,
Karl Denninger
Stephen K. Gielda <st...@cotseNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>> 1. If your software was asked to send more than, oh, two postings in
>> one day to any specific newsgroup that it would ban that group from
>> further postings for 24 hours.
>
>Imagine if yours did that, you'd be banned by now.
Not the point, Stephen.
Address the *legitimate* uses for your service. (Hint: One of them is not
hiding behind a wall and tossing rocks at others)
>> 2. Prohibit crossposting entirely.
>
>Did that for a year, didn't make a difference, people just separate post.
>Non-crossposting fragments cross group discussions also. Cotse is
>limited to three groups when crossposting, that is pretty strict.
In combination with (1) it would prevent the abuse.
>> 3. Do not permit people to set the "FROM" header. It serves no purpose
>> in an anonymous environment. Instead set it to a robot on your
>> server that would reply with "the source is intentionally cloaked
>> and no person can lay claim to the content represented in any
>> message with this source address, as they have intentionally and
>> willfully shielded their identity."
>
>The email address is always <anon...@cotse.com> that cannot be changed.
>There is no rule saying anyone posting as "The Hobbit" is guaranteed to
>be the only "The Hobbit" on usenet.
>
>Anyway, there is a balance with functionality as many use this for daily
>conversation. Imagine the same restrictions on your posting.
By definition an "anonymous" post is not for the purpose of "conversation".
It cannot be.
Anonymous speech is by its very nature unidirectional. It is less subject
to abuse than cloaked speech for this reason - you cannot get a personal
reply back to an anonymously spoken thing, nor can you later take ownership
of that speech, since by definnition you spoke it with the explicit act of
disclaiming and scrubbing clean all identification from your words.
>Before you claim you can be tracked because of your host, that isn't a
>given. Understand that there is no way to positively tag a users ID to
>an IP with any ISP, nor should there ever be (See
>http://www.cotse.com/column1.htm for my reasoning on why).
Oh yes there is and yes there absolutely should be.
I ran one of these things (an ISP) for a long time Stephen. I could
absolutely, positively, identify what account a posting came from.
Every single time. If I got subpoenaed (and occasionally I did) I
could provide a legally-defensible trace that would lead right back to
the TELEPHONE NUMBER of the person placing the call into our POP.
Several times I did exactly that, and people got nailed (and good) for
their abusive activities from our system. In one particular case that
I remember well (due to the particulars) a person got nailed for fraudulent
activity across state lines and prosecuted (I have no idea if they actually
were jailed, but I bet they were as the evidence was pretty damning!)
Your article is known as "apocalyptic literature." Good examples of this
can be found in books - like the Bible.
Yours is a bad example.
Further, I'm not (and never have) argued making it ILLEGAL to be anonymous.
On the contrary. I'm arguing that IF you are going to have "anonymous"
postings, then they MUST BE ANONYMOUS, and the system should be designed
to discourge abusive uses of that technology!
Allowing people to plaster SOMEONE ELSE's moniker on a posting isn't an act
of "anonymous posting." Its an act of constructive fraud and forgery, with
you as a willing co-conspirator to the act.
Anonymous posting serves a legitimate purpose. You get no argument from me
on that.
But what you're providing is not anonymous posting - you're providing a
shield behind which to commit criminal and civil offenses, along with just
plain old-fashioned rock-throwing. You're analagous to the bar owner who
hangs out a sign saying "do your crack here - curtains to pull around your
table and alarms to announce the arrival of the police available on request!"
>I could come from any ISP and not be traceable to a person. That is
>because of the technology. As long as I can log into another machine
>from the one I sit at this will not go away. You can't say, that is a
>valid account so I know exactly who you are. This is a valid account and
>a valid name, is it really mine? Do you know for sure? 100%?
Do I need to know with 100% certainty? No, I do not. What I do know is
that you dialed into server port <X> from telephone number <Y> and presented
thereupon a set of credentials that were registered to user <Z>. What you
do from that point forward is attributed to that tuple of information,
and that tuple of information tracks back to a person who signed a legal
agreement to do (and not to do) certain things.
>Anyway, cancel wars involve DtR, in case you are not aware, DtR reposts
>cancelled posts (see news.admin.net-abuse.usenet). What this ends up
>causing is a worse mess than the one you have. It's cleaner to kill
>file. Imagine everyone cancelling what they don't want to see.
DtR does not resurrect anonymous postings. At least it didn't the last time
I was in the middle of this nonsense. Things coming from cotse should be
per-se exempt from DtR activity, since they are by definition not
attributable to a person. Your own headers disclaim ownership of anything
that comes out of that machine.
As a consequence DtR is grossly inappropriate, as it might be my very own
posting that I'm cancelling. You have no way to know if I'm cancelling my
own work or someone else's, and as such, resurrecting a posting that gets
cancelled from a system such as yours is inappropriate in each and every
case.
>Anyway, check the BI on his posts from cotse, if he violates it I'll ban
>him. Also check his posts against our policies, if he violates them
>we'll act.
BI on a *single post* is not the point; you must compute it across the
multitude posted on a given topic in a given period of time. The BI rules
specifically state this.
Taken that way, Moore has so massively violated the BI rules that he should
have been banned a year ago.
The lie is put to your claims in that you've not done so.
Your claim that you'll "act" is vacuous.
Its time to get my coding finished.
Maybe I should post the code from your anonymous server, once a day, for a
month - along with detailed instructions on how to use it..... :-)
Be careful what you support Stephen, it might bite you in your own ass.
Secret Squirrel
> In article <MPG.13fb5834b...@news.supernews.com>,
> Stephen K. Gielda <st...@cotseNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> >In article <8ms1bd$rhm$0...@dosa.alt.net>, ka...@FS.Denninger.Net says...
> >> 3. Do not permit people to set the "FROM" header. It serves no purpose
> >> in an anonymous environment. Instead set it to a robot on your
> >> server that would reply with "the source is intentionally cloaked
> >> and no person can lay claim to the content represented in any
> >> message with this source address, as they have intentionally and
> >> willfully shielded their identity."
You can't stop me from placing the functional equivalent of a From:
header _in_the_body_of_a_message_. I can claim to be anyone; even
you. See the signature at the end of this post.
> By definition an "anonymous" post is not for the purpose of "conversation".
>
> It cannot be.
In your twisted little fantasy, perhaps, but not in the real world.
> Anonymous speech is by its very nature unidirectional.
Anonymous speech is by its very nature anonymous.
--
Karl Denninger <ka...@denninger.net>
Wilbur Streett
>In article <MPG.13fb4b0a...@news.supernews.com>,
>Stephen K. Gielda <st...@cotseNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>>In article <8mrv1d$nnd$0...@pita.alt.net>, ka...@FS.Denninger.Net says...
>>> Not relavent Stephen.
>>>
>>>
>><snip bunch of babble>
>>
>>Cancel away then.
>>
>>/steve
>
>Gee, you got the point! :-)
I got the point that you're not going to do the canceling, Karl.
Accept the responsibility fully, or don't play.
fathers...@dragoncon.net
wrote:
>In article <HI09P07B3674...@nuther-planet.net>,
> <fathers...@dragoncon.net> wrote:
>>On 8 Aug 2000 20:00:22 GMT ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger)
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>Why don't you start with posting from your own account, whoever you might
>>>be?
>>
>>I am posting from my account. This is a legitimate, replyable address.
>
>No you're not. There is no evidence to support that, and in fact an
>explicit disclaimer that the address from which this is CLAIMED to have come
>is unverifyable.
>
>There is no evidence available to back up who you might (or might not) be.
>
>>> How can someone send 300 complaints to an ISP when we don't know who
>>>you are?
>>
>>My father's rights pages are being hosted by an ISP. Ken has sent over
>>300 complaints to that ISP, idiot.
>
>So what? Your posting from behind a wall changes nothing there.
>
>>>Mr. Mythical wimp, thou are you.
>>>
>>>As for being Pangborn's sock puppet, get a grip. Ken and I no more get
>>>along than Dean Tong and I.
>>
>>Then why are you defending him by attempting to censor my posts, which
>>tell my side of the story?
>
>I'm not attempting to censor your posts. You are free to post your side of
>the story from your ISP, where you cannot DISCLAIM your posts later on
>because they are traceable.
I am also free to exercise my right to privacy.
>
>>>I'm just tired of your bullshit coming from anonymous remailers and making
>>>entire groups 90% full of your trash.
>>
>>Wake up. It's an unmoderated newsgroup. Also, I don't post that
>>often... anon posting can be accessed by more than one person, you
>>know.
>
>You can post anonymously, but as a consequence I can claim I posted it with
>your name on the FROM header and thus have the right to cancel it.
And if you did so, then you would be admitting that you are guilty of
forgery... as you are not the owner of the address
"fathers...@dragoncon.net".
>
>You can't take ownership of the posting, since you INTENTIONALLY avoided
>having it be tracable. As a consequence ANYONE can legitimately cancel it
>by simply saying "I sent that, and I have a right to cancel my own
>messages."
And they would be thus admitting to forging an address which belongs to
me.
>
>There is nothing you can say or do in rebuttal to that, since you have the
>absolute ability to post from OTHER than a remailer, where such a cancel
>would be a clear violation of an ISPs AUP.
And I also have the right to privacy, and the freedom to choose the
manner in which I post. Which does not give you the inherent right to
censor my opinions.
>
>Cancelling a post from an anonymous remailer is not such a violation, as
>there is no way to prove if the user sending the cancel is or is not the
>poster of the original message.
Yes there is. I have a replyable, authentic e-mail address. Anyone
wishing to ascertain whether or not I'm the author of something can
freely contact me at the replyable address.
By the way, I note that your fearless leader got TOSsed from AOL
yesterday. Another buffoon who thought he was invincible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Denninger
>>Stephen K. Gielda <st...@cotseNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>>>In article <8mrv1d$nnd$0...@pita.alt.net>, ka...@FS.Denninger.Net says...
>>>> Not relavent Stephen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>><snip bunch of babble>
>>>
>>>Cancel away then.
>>>
>>>/steve
>>
>>Gee, you got the point! :-)
>
>I got the point that you're not going to do the canceling, Karl.
>
>Accept the responsibility fully, or don't play.
I'm free to do what I want Wilbur.
Just like Moore, or whoever he is today.
I can see that your definition of free speech only includes speech you agree
with. When its not (like code to cancel postings when run by any number of
users) then there's a problem.
You're just another of the many pigs that doesn't stand behind what they
profess.
I call that hypocrisy Wilbur.
You may call it whatever you'd like.
Karl Denninger
<fathers...@dragoncon.net> wrote:
>
>Yes there is. I have a replyable, authentic e-mail address. Anyone
>wishing to ascertain whether or not I'm the author of something can
>freely contact me at the replyable address.
No you don't.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
>Any address shown in the From header is unverified.
There it is, right there.
This posting came from Joe Buttfucko.
You want to take ownership of your words? Post from Anet.
Wilbur Streett
>In article <3991c3c0....@news.monmouth.com>,
>Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
>>ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <MPG.13fb4b0a...@news.supernews.com>,
>>>Stephen K. Gielda <st...@cotseNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>>>>In article <8mrv1d$nnd$0...@pita.alt.net>, ka...@FS.Denninger.Net says...
>>>>> Not relavent Stephen.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>><snip bunch of babble>
>>>>
>>>>Cancel away then.
>>>>
>>>>/steve
>>>
>>>Gee, you got the point! :-)
>>
>>I got the point that you're not going to do the canceling, Karl.
>>
>>Accept the responsibility fully, or don't play.
>
>I'm free to do what I want Wilbur.
Yeah.. but you aren't willing to accept the actual responsibility .. Run
the cancel machine yourself, and own up the reaponsibility of doing it.
If you want to write software for people to filter out messages, write it
for their WORKSTATIONS, rather than to further your own strange concepts of
"free speech"..
>Just like Moore, or whoever he is today.
Yeah.. Yeah.. So you admit that you are at the same level as the man you
claim is the evil one. Got it.
>I can see that your definition of free speech only includes speech you agree
>with.
Hardly.. But I know that hackers and handles existed a long time before
anonymous remailers..
>When its not (like code to cancel postings when run by any number of
>users) then there's a problem.
So then you think that it's OK to cancel anything from the denniger domain
as well, right? After all, when you put the gun on the street you never
know who they're goign to point it at.
>You're just another of the many pigs that doesn't stand behind what they
>profess.
Gee, I'm standing here just fine.
>I call that hypocrisy Wilbur.
Yeah, you've obviously decided that you want to attack me, rather than
sending a single message asking Anne Mitchel to resurrect the moderated
newsgroup..
>You may call it whatever you'd like.
Don't really need to.
Karl Denninger
fathers-rights <anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net> wrote:
>On 10 Aug 2000 00:17:53 GMT ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <AVUEEMLI3674...@nuther-planet.net>,
>> <fathers...@dragoncon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Yes there is. I have a replyable, authentic e-mail address. Anyone
>>>wishing to ascertain whether or not I'm the author of something can
>>>freely contact me at the replyable address.
>>
>>No you don't.
>>
>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
>>>Any address shown in the From header is unverified.
>>
>>There it is, right there.
>>
>>This posting came from Joe Buttfucko.
>>
>>You want to take ownership of your words? Post from Anet.
>>
>>--
>
>summary of why I choose not to post directly through my ISP.
>
>About three years ago, I came to the alt.dads/alt.child-support forums.
> I saw some good info out here, and also felt that I had some to share.
> So I put the information onto a webpage.
>
>Almost immediately, a series of attacks against me began. They started
>online, and soon grew to include offline attacks in the form of
>harassing telephone calls at my home and place of work. The main
>perpetrator, a feminist and "malevolent mom" from California, also
>launched a campaign of mailbombing my ISP demanding that my pages be
>pulled down. My ISP was receiving dozens of complaints a day, all of
>which oddly came from America Online screen names. My wife was
>targetted as well, although she had no affiliation with what was going
>on. Before it was over, the woman, whose name I later found was Judith
>Mclinn, actually travelled to my home and followed my family around.
>
>I could have simply pulled my web pages down and changed my screen
>name, and Judith would have probably moved on and harassed someone
>else. But my pages contain opinions and views which I felt needed to
>be shared, and which I have the right to share. If we simply give in,
>what message are we sending to the Judiths of the world? Instead, I
>chose to use the remailer system. It allows me to convey my opinions,
>without giving Judith, Pangborn or Oconnor and friends a method with
>which to censor me. People who choose not to read my post are free to
>skip over them, or add me to their killfile.
On the contrary.
All it does is give you a means of denying them when someone complains
to an ISP about you.
In other words, all it does is give you a means of committing abuse without
paying for it.
So long as you CLAIM to be someone in particular in those posts, you get
exactly nothing in "real world" protection against "attacks".
Karl Denninger
Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
>ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger) wrote:
>
>>Just like Moore, or whoever he is today.
>
>Yeah.. Yeah.. So you admit that you are at the same level as the man you
>claim is the evil one. Got it.
More twisting. You didn't read beyond the second word this time either, did
you? Just like your phone call with me where you couldn't keep your yap
shut for more than two words of a sentence and then tried to claim that I
said something I didn't?
>>I can see that your definition of free speech only includes speech you agree
>>with.
>
>Hardly.. But I know that hackers and handles existed a long time before
>anonymous remailers..
Not relavent. Free speech includes the right to publish software. Or does
it Wilbur?
>>When its not (like code to cancel postings when run by any number of
>>users) then there's a problem.
>
>So then you think that it's OK to cancel anything from the denniger domain
>as well, right? After all, when you put the gun on the street you never
>know who they're goign to point it at.
Heh, if someone thinks its worth their time and risk of losing their account
over, sure. In my case, since I post from a real address with a real
account and don't try to hide behind anonymous remailers, its a clear
act of forgery.
This cannot be said for cancelling anonymous postings.
>>You're just another of the many pigs that doesn't stand behind what they
>>profess.
>
>Gee, I'm standing here just fine.
Yeah, yah.
>>I call that hypocrisy Wilbur.
>
>Yeah, you've obviously decided that you want to attack me, rather than
>sending a single message asking Anne Mitchel to resurrect the moderated
>newsgroup..
Why should I ask Anne Mitchel anything? You've yet to demonstrate that
doing so would change anything HERE, or in fl.*, or in chi.*, or anywhere
else.
I'm singularly disinterested in your attempts at shifting the discussion to
fit your preconceived notions. But that goes along with the rest, doesn't
it?
>>You may call it whatever you'd like.
>
>Don't really need to.
You already have.
Give up Wilbur.
You lost this debate, and those linked to it, a long time ago.
fathers...@dragoncon.net
wrote:
>In article <AVUEEMLI3674...@nuther-planet.net>,
> <fathers...@dragoncon.net> wrote:
>>
>>Yes there is. I have a replyable, authentic e-mail address. Anyone
>>wishing to ascertain whether or not I'm the author of something can
>>freely contact me at the replyable address.
>
>No you don't.
>
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
>>Any address shown in the From header is unverified.
>
>There it is, right there.
Yes...if you're such an idiot that you don't understand the meaning of
the word "unverified". "Unverified" doesn't mean that it's not true.
And anyone with questions has been given the means to verify it.
>
>This posting came from Joe Buttfucko.
>
>You want to take ownership of your words? Post from Anet.
Fuck off.
fathers...@dragoncon.net
wrote:
>In article <3991c3c0....@news.monmouth.com>,
>Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
>>ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <MPG.13fb4b0a...@news.supernews.com>,
>>>Stephen K. Gielda <st...@cotseNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>>>>In article <8mrv1d$nnd$0...@pita.alt.net>, ka...@FS.Denninger.Net says...
>>>>> Not relavent Stephen.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>><snip bunch of babble>
>>>>
>>>>Cancel away then.
>>>>
>>>>/steve
>>>
>>>Gee, you got the point! :-)
>>
>>I got the point that you're not going to do the canceling, Karl.
>>
>>Accept the responsibility fully, or don't play.
>
>I'm free to do what I want Wilbur.
>
>Just like Moore, or whoever he is today.
>
>I can see that your definition of free speech only includes speech you agree
>with.
As does yours, since you're threatening to write a bot which censors
only a certain group of people, while allowing another group to post
freely.
When its not (like code to cancel postings when run by any number of
>users) then there's a problem.
>
>You're just another of the many pigs that doesn't stand behind what they
>profess.
>
>I call that hypocrisy Wilbur.
>
>You may call it whatever you'd like.
>
>--
>--
>Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
>http://www.denninger.net Cost-effective solutions on the Internet
>http://childrens-justice.org Working to protect children's rights
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Denninger
<fathers...@dragoncon.net> wrote:
>On 10 Aug 2000 00:17:53 GMT ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger)
>wrote:
>>
>>This posting came from Joe Buttfucko.
>>
>>You want to take ownership of your words? Post from Anet.
>
>Fuck off.
There we go.
The intelligence of the person who claims to be this individual just was
documented and demonstrated for all to see.
Karl Denninger
<fathers...@dragoncon.net> wrote:
>On 10 Aug 2000 00:16:48 GMT ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger)
>wrote:
>>
>>I can see that your definition of free speech only includes speech you agree
>>with.
>
>As does yours, since you're threatening to write a bot which censors
>only a certain group of people, while allowing another group to post
>freely.
You may post freely.
Do it from your ISP instead of a remailer.
FORM and MANNER, not CONTENT.
Wilbur Streett
>In article <3991f935....@news.monmouth.com>,
>Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
>>ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger) wrote:
>>
>>>Just like Moore, or whoever he is today.
>>
>>Yeah.. Yeah.. So you admit that you are at the same level as the man you
>>claim is the evil one. Got it.
>
>More twisting. You didn't read beyond the second word this time either, did
>you? Just like your phone call with me where you couldn't keep your yap
>shut for more than two words of a sentence and then tried to claim that I
>said something I didn't?
I repeated back what you said verbatum.
I also gave you an extended period to state what you believed, with no
interruptions at all, and when I started to respond, you couldn't handle
it. I attempted to continue the conversation, at another time, as I had
people calling me, etc.. and you claimed that the we had reached some
conclusion..
>>>I can see that your definition of free speech only includes speech you agree
>>>with.
>>
>>Hardly.. But I know that hackers and handles existed a long time before
>>anonymous remailers..
>
>Not relavent. Free speech includes the right to publish software. Or does
>it Wilbur?
Sure, but tell that to the guy that wrote the Melissa Virus.
>>>When its not (like code to cancel postings when run by any number of
>>>users) then there's a problem.
>>
>>So then you think that it's OK to cancel anything from the denniger domain
>>as well, right? After all, when you put the gun on the street you never
>>know who they're goign to point it at.
>
>Heh, if someone thinks its worth their time and risk of losing their account
>over, sure.
Oh, you don't think that someone can figure out how to is cancels so that
they can't be traced to an actual user account, of that a fake user account
can't be set up in any of the places that the internet exists to support
that?
>In my case, since I post from a real address with a real
>account and don't try to hide behind anonymous remailers, its a clear
>act of forgery.
Canceling your posts would be free speech also, according to your
definition.
>This cannot be said for cancelling anonymous postings.
You have some strange ideas of freedom of speech. Why don't you take this
discussion to alt.anon and see how they trash you on it.
>>>You're just another of the many pigs that doesn't stand behind what they
>>>profess.
>>
>>Gee, I'm standing here just fine.
>
>Yeah, yah.
So cancel from your own account.
>>>I call that hypocrisy Wilbur.
>>
>>Yeah, you've obviously decided that you want to attack me, rather than
>>sending a single message asking Anne Mitchel to resurrect the moderated
>>newsgroup..
>
>Why should I ask Anne Mitchel anything? You've yet to demonstrate that
>doing so would change anything HERE, or in fl.*, or in chi.*, or anywhere
>else.
The process to change the charter of a public newsgroup is known.
Resurrecting the moderated newsgroup would remove the flame war from where
most people would post..
>I'm singularly disinterested in your attempts at shifting the discussion to
>fit your preconceived notions. But that goes along with the rest, doesn't
>it?
What "preconceived" notions do you think that I have. You have to attempt
to define then before you can refute them, but you couldn't be bothered to
listen long enough.
>>>You may call it whatever you'd like.
>>
>>Don't really need to.
>
>You already have.
Nope.. I haven't bothered to reduce your argument to a label.
>Give up Wilbur.
Best you can come up with?
>You lost this debate, and those linked to it, a long time ago.
Yeah, so how come the software that you claim you can write wasn't written
years ago, when death threats through anonymous remailers was one of the
issues..
Wilbur Streett
>In article <AVUEEMLI3674...@nuther-planet.net>,
> <fathers...@dragoncon.net> wrote:
>>
>>Yes there is. I have a replyable, authentic e-mail address. Anyone
>>wishing to ascertain whether or not I'm the author of something can
>>freely contact me at the replyable address.
>
>No you don't.
>
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
>>Any address shown in the From header is unverified.
>
>There it is, right there.
>
>This posting came from Joe Buttfucko.
>
>You want to take ownership of your words? Post from Anet.
Gee, so you can't manage to get a reply to a message, asking if the post
was real?
You have a strange idea of what constitutes validation of a message source,
and proof of delivery.
Karl Denninger
Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
>ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger) wrote:
>
>>In article <AVUEEMLI3674...@nuther-planet.net>,
>> <fathers...@dragoncon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Yes there is. I have a replyable, authentic e-mail address. Anyone
>>>wishing to ascertain whether or not I'm the author of something can
>>>freely contact me at the replyable address.
>>
>>No you don't.
>>
>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
>>>Any address shown in the From header is unverified.
>>
>>There it is, right there.
>>
>>This posting came from Joe Buttfucko.
>>
>>You want to take ownership of your words? Post from Anet.
>
>Gee, so you can't manage to get a reply to a message, asking if the post
>was real?
Not relavent Wilbur.
If its "valid" then why not post it from your own account?
The only reason not to do that is to maintain the ability to SELECTIVELY
deny authorship.
In other words, to abuse with impunity and not be held to account for it.
>You have a strange idea of what constitutes validation of a message source,
>and proof of delivery.
>
>Wilbur
Irrelavent, once again, to the point at hand.
Karl Denninger
Farley <far...@subdimension.com> wrote:
>In article <8mtcpj$avo$0...@pita.alt.net>, ka...@FS.Denninger.Net says...
>>
>> Heh, if someone thinks its worth their time and risk of losing their account
>> account and don't try to hide behind anonymous remailers, its a clear
>> act of forgery.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>what you threaten they would have to consider the idea of not allowing
>third party cancels to restore balance.
>
>It occurs to me that, leaving out all the blather, this would actually
>be the most likely global result of your actions.
>
>Actually I was quite surprised to find that my other ISP, Pipex,
>already ignore third party cancels because they feel the system is too
>open to abuse.
>
>Is this what you're after. destroying a very useful service, third
>party cancelling, because you've abused it on such a wide scale.
Heh, you neve rknow.
>Another point to bear in mind is this. If I chose to put
>anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net in my address line as I have with this
>one, your bot would cancel it and I could prove ownership and take
>action against you.
Take what action? You sent a message to a machine asking it to distribute
a message. I asked it to remove a message. We both made a request, and it
is up to the news server operator whether or not to grant either of our
requests, and if it does, whether to require authentication.
One of the other potential consequences of this is that news servers start
demanding PGP signed messages. Now THAT would solve the abuse problem (and
destroy anonymous posting as well), wouldn't it? :-)
>Admittedly Michael Shinn could sue me for forging his email header,
>but I'd be prepared to risk a lot on the basis that's he's nowhere
>near as petty as you and wouldn't waste his time.
>
>I'm so certain of this latter that you can be assured I will do it if
>you pursue you course of action.
>
>By the way my address is real. Though if you're abusive you needen't
>expect a reply.
>--
>Farley
You would have no basis for "taking action" against me for sending a REQUEST
to a machine to delete something.
You've already documented your lack of standing through your investigation
that such cancels are already routinely ignored by some server admins :-)
Karl Denninger
>>account and don't try to hide behind anonymous remailers, its a clear
>>act of forgery.
>
>definition.
>
>
>discussion to alt.anon and see how they trash you on it.
Freedom of speech includes the freedom to ask others not to listen, or to
remove things that are written somewhere. The person who OWNS the machine
that the message is on may ignore or obey your REQUEST.
What part of "my machine, my rules" did you miss WILBUR?
>>Yeah, yah.
>
>So cancel from your own account.
I'll do what I wish, thank you very much.
>>>Yeah, you've obviously decided that you want to attack me, rather than
>>>sending a single message asking Anne Mitchel to resurrect the moderated
>>>newsgroup..
>>
>>Why should I ask Anne Mitchel anything? You've yet to demonstrate that
>>doing so would change anything HERE, or in fl.*, or in chi.*, or anywhere
>>else.
>
>The process to change the charter of a public newsgroup is known.
>Resurrecting the moderated newsgroup would remove the flame war from where
>most people would post..
Incorrect. It will not remove them from here, nor from any of the regional
groups.
>>I'm singularly disinterested in your attempts at shifting the discussion to
>>fit your preconceived notions. But that goes along with the rest, doesn't
>>it?
>
>What "preconceived" notions do you think that I have. You have to attempt
>to define then before you can refute them, but you couldn't be bothered to
>listen long enough.
Already did Wilbur.
>>>>You may call it whatever you'd like.
>>>
>>>Don't really need to.
>>
>>You already have.
>
>Nope.. I haven't bothered to reduce your argument to a label.
>
>>Give up Wilbur.
>
>Best you can come up with?
>
>>You lost this debate, and those linked to it, a long time ago.
>
>Yeah, so how come the software that you claim you can write wasn't written
>years ago, when death threats through anonymous remailers was one of the
>issues..
Uh, who said it wasn't?
You forget the fact that I already HAVE the software. It just is
inconvenient for INDIVIDUALS to use in its present format as it requires
a full news FEED to operate.
Look up the domain "clean-news.com" for when that software was CREATED.
Wilbur Streett
>>>This cannot be said for cancelling anonymous postings.
>>
>>You have some strange ideas of freedom of speech. Why don't you take this
>>discussion to alt.anon and see how they trash you on it.
>
>Freedom of speech includes the freedom to ask others not to listen, or to
>remove things that are written somewhere. The person who OWNS the machine
>that the message is on may ignore or obey your REQUEST.
>
>What part of "my machine, my rules" did you miss WILBUR?
So why are you attempting to define the rules for another person's machine?
>>>Yeah, yah.
>>
>>So cancel from your own account.
>
>I'll do what I wish, thank you very much.
Yeah, because you think that you can limit responsibility.
>>>>Yeah, you've obviously decided that you want to attack me, rather than
>>>>sending a single message asking Anne Mitchel to resurrect the moderated
>>>>newsgroup..
>>>
>>>Why should I ask Anne Mitchel anything? You've yet to demonstrate that
>>>doing so would change anything HERE, or in fl.*, or in chi.*, or anywhere
>>>else.
>>
>>The process to change the charter of a public newsgroup is known.
>>Resurrecting the moderated newsgroup would remove the flame war from where
>>most people would post..
>
>Incorrect. It will not remove them from here, nor from any of the regional
>groups.
"original groups"? Last I checked, it's HERE.
>>>I'm singularly disinterested in your attempts at shifting the discussion to
>>>fit your preconceived notions. But that goes along with the rest, doesn't
>>>it?
>>
>>What "preconceived" notions do you think that I have. You have to attempt
>>to define then before you can refute them, but you couldn't be bothered to
>>listen long enough.
>
>Already did Wilbur.
So please show me where. Your attempts to redefine how you can write
software to allow someone other than the owner of the machine to manage
someone else's machine I've already responded to.
As I said, if you want to write the software, write it to filter on an
individual users machine. Offer the filter to deja.com or any of the other
news services.. How much work to forward the messages to an email list of
your own design, without the messages from the people that you think need
to be filtered because they post through an anonymous remailer?
>>>>>You may call it whatever you'd like.
>>>>
>>>>Don't really need to.
>>>
>>>You already have.
>>
>>Nope.. I haven't bothered to reduce your argument to a label.
>>
>>>Give up Wilbur.
>>
>>Best you can come up with?
>>
>>>You lost this debate, and those linked to it, a long time ago.
>>
>>Yeah, so how come the software that you claim you can write wasn't written
>>years ago, when death threats through anonymous remailers was one of the
>>issues..
>
>Uh, who said it wasn't?
Gee, I didn't.
>You forget the fact that I already HAVE the software. It just is
>inconvenient for INDIVIDUALS to use in its present format as it requires
>a full news FEED to operate.
So what. I believe that I have already discussed this issue with my own
ISP, over sushi, and he wasn't on your side. But it would make for good
sushi talk again.
>Look up the domain "clean-news.com" for when that software was CREATED.
.. and it still hasn't resolved your inability to deal with flame wars..
got it.
Wilbur Streett
>In article <39931e77....@news.monmouth.com>,
>Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
>>ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <AVUEEMLI3674...@nuther-planet.net>,
>>> <fathers...@dragoncon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Yes there is. I have a replyable, authentic e-mail address. Anyone
>>>>wishing to ascertain whether or not I'm the author of something can
>>>>freely contact me at the replyable address.
>>>
>>>No you don't.
>>>
>>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
>>>>Any address shown in the From header is unverified.
>>>
>>>There it is, right there.
>>>
>>>This posting came from Joe Buttfucko.
>>>
>>>You want to take ownership of your words? Post from Anet.
>>
>>Gee, so you can't manage to get a reply to a message, asking if the post
>>was real?
>
>Not relavent Wilbur.
Yes, it is quite relevant. Your attempts to claim that messages can be
definatively sources are bunk. Your claims that the responsibility lies
with the ISP to filter the world is bunk. You don't like a remailer, then
KILLFILE it on your machine.
If you want to talk about fathers' rights, then do it.
>If its "valid" then why not post it from your own account?
If it's valid, then why be forced to post it from any particular account?
What motivation do you have? Why are you attempting to claim that despite
being able to validate the source through communications to a user at
Dragoncon, that he must for your own selfish means, post through ANET?
For all that you know, both players on both sides might be looking to use
the flame war to further Ken Pangborn's business.. look at how well Bill
Clinton got past the criminal acts by playing with Monica?
>The only reason not to do that is to maintain the ability to SELECTIVELY
>deny authorship.
.. You mean like the obvious posts that are being made in support of Ken
Pangborn through anonymous remailers?
I'm sorry, Karl, as I explained to you on the phone, some group out there,
probably associated with Ken Pangborn, is flooding ISPs with complaints
against anyone that says anything on this newsgroup. My ISP bothered to
read what I actually posted, and had no problems with it. Other ISP's
don't have the same level of staff, and simply cancel the account and let
someone else deal with the problem.
>In other words, to abuse with impunity and not be held to account for it.
.. which happened before anonymous remailers. But you didn't allow me to
get into the William Carbondale discussion.
>>You have a strange idea of what constitutes validation of a message source,
>>and proof of delivery.
>>
>>Wilbur
>
>Irrelavent, once again, to the point at hand.
Hardly. You claim that the source can not be verified, and I pointed out
that it can. Noise is noise. If you personally don't like it, then turn
on your killfile. But as I told you, several people have posted personal
issues to this newsgroup using anonymous remailers and have received help.
Karl Denninger
Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
>ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger) wrote:
>>
>>Not relavent Wilbur.
>
>Yes, it is quite relevant. Your attempts to claim that messages can be
>definatively sources are bunk. Your claims that the responsibility lies
>with the ISP to filter the world is bunk. You don't like a remailer, then
>KILLFILE it on your machine.
Ah, but suggesting to others that they killfile it is not legitimate?
Why not Wilbur?
I thought we both have the right to speak freely (which includes asking others
not to listen to certain people or certain sources of speech)
>If you want to talk about fathers' rights, then do it.
I'm talking about the abuse of anonymous remailers by people who *CLAIM* to
be interested in father's rights.
I argue that they are interested in no such thing and that ALL OF THEM
are "plugged into" in this issue for their own financial interest to the
specific detriment of kids.
And oh, by the way, remember that message you forwarded me about Moore
saying he was TAKING DOWN HIS KEN PANGBORN WEB PAGES? He has done NO SUCH
THING.
That is, he LIED to you Wilbur.
I checked it this afternoon.
>>If its "valid" then why not post it from your own account?
>
>If it's valid, then why be forced to post it from any particular account?
If you're claiming authorship, then do so. If you're disclaiming
authorship, then do so.
You can't have it both ways ON DEMAND and EX-POST FACTO.
You DO know the meaning of that, right?
>What motivation do you have? Why are you attempting to claim that despite
>being able to validate the source through communications to a user at
>Dragoncon, that he must for your own selfish means, post through ANET?
What if he refuses to validate a given post?
This is known as selective denial, or more commonly in the political arena,
plausable deniability.
And in this case, you now have someone who has a DOCUMENTED RECORD in your
HANDS of lying TO YOU - and you say you'd believe him if he "took credit"
for a given post?
How many times do you have to be lied to before it counts Wilbur?
If you use it on the net, its better called ANONYMOUS POSTING, which means
what it says. But since you can't then take ownership of it, as you
RESERVED THE RIGHT TO DISCLAIM IT LATER, I can take that ownership AND
CANCEL IT without recourse.
>For all that you know, both players on both sides might be looking to use
>the flame war to further Ken Pangborn's business..
For all I know both "sides" are either Ken Pangborn or David Moore - that
is, BOTH may be one person.
>>The only reason not to do that is to maintain the ability to SELECTIVELY
>>deny authorship.
>
>.. You mean like the obvious posts that are being made in support of Ken
>Pangborn through anonymous remailers?
Gee, they'll get killed too.
>I'm sorry, Karl, as I explained to you on the phone, some group out there,
>probably associated with Ken Pangborn, is flooding ISPs with complaints
>against anyone that says anything on this newsgroup.
Which has nothing to do with "anonymous" postings. If people are doing
that, they will do that whether you post "anonymously" or not, provided
you put a "real" name in the headers.
Your argument is nonsense.
> My ISP bothered to
>read what I actually posted, and had no problems with it. Other ISP's
>don't have the same level of staff, and simply cancel the account and let
>someone else deal with the problem.
So what? Now you want to dictate to ISPs what their level of customer
service and tolerance for people's bullshit is? What's next?
>>In other words, to abuse with impunity and not be held to account for it.
>
>.. which happened before anonymous remailers. But you didn't allow me to
>get into the William Carbondale discussion.
Again, not relavent TO THE POINT AT HAND.
>>>You have a strange idea of what constitutes validation of a message source,
>>>and proof of delivery.
>>>
>>>Wilbur
>>
>>Irrelavent, once again, to the point at hand.
>
>Hardly. You claim that the source can not be verified, and I pointed out
>that it can.
No it can't. It can be SELECTIVELY denied by the purported author, whether
they wrote it or not.
> Noise is noise. If you personally don't like it, then turn
>on your killfile.
I have the right to ask others to kill the message as well, since doing so
is a form of speech. Those others (news admins) have the right to either
ignore me or take my request and act on it.
> But as I told you, several people have posted personal
>issues to this newsgroup using anonymous remailers and have received help.
STILL not relavent.
Further, if you want a place to post such things, do your resurrection of
the moderated group and people can post anonymously *AFTER BEING LOOKED AT
BY A MODERATOR* <IN THERE>.
That, along with killing the anonymous posts HERE, solves the problem
without removing the ability of people to use anonymous postings for
LEGITIMATE purpose.
Quit shilling for your sock puppet, who is now a DOCUMENTED liar Wilbur to
your own standards and with the documentation in your own hands!
Or are you now going to tell me that the email which YOU forwarded to me,
purportedly by David Moore SAYING that he was going to pull down all his
Pangborn web page material, was forged?
David is a documented liar Wilbur. Documented by his own hand with the
proof to your standards of identification in your own email Inbox.
You forwarded said letter to me.
The pages are still up.
He LIED.
What's your NEXT excuse for not supporting shutting this asshole down?
From where I sit you're running out of 'em.
Karl Denninger
>>>
>>>You have some strange ideas of freedom of speech. Why don't you take this
>>>discussion to alt.anon and see how they trash you on it.
>>
>>Freedom of speech includes the freedom to ask others not to listen, or to
>>remove things that are written somewhere. The person who OWNS the machine
>>that the message is on may ignore or obey your REQUEST.
>>
>>What part of "my machine, my rules" did you miss WILBUR?
>
>So why are you attempting to define the rules for another person's machine?
I can't do that Wilbur.
I can make suggestions. I cannot enforce them, just as you cannot.
>>>So cancel from your own account.
>>
>>I'll do what I wish, thank you very much.
>
>Yeah, because you think that you can limit responsibility.
No, because my news provider specifically prohibits doing what you want me
to do, and I agreed to those terms of service. What part of responsibility
did you miss Wilbur?
Not all ISPs have such restrictions.
>>Incorrect. It will not remove them from here, nor from any of the regional
>>groups.
>
>"original groups"? Last I checked, it's HERE.
REGIONAL. Now you can't read as well?
>So please show me where. Your attempts to redefine how you can write
>software to allow someone other than the owner of the machine to manage
>someone else's machine I've already responded to.
I can do no such thing. I can make suggestions to other news admins, which
they are free to ignore or accept. So can you. So can anyone.
>>You forget the fact that I already HAVE the software. It just is
>>inconvenient for INDIVIDUALS to use in its present format as it requires
>>a full news FEED to operate.
>
>So what. I believe that I have already discussed this issue with my own
>ISP, over sushi, and he wasn't on your side. But it would make for good
>sushi talk again.
So what?
>>Look up the domain "clean-news.com" for when that software was CREATED.
>
>.. and it still hasn't resolved your inability to deal with flame wars..
>
>got it.
>
>Wilbur
Sure it does. To my satisfaction, which for me, is all that matters.
Oh, by the way, you're still supporting a documented liar, with the
documentation in your own hands.
Why is that Wilbur?
ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to
In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
> Bluntly:
> Stop the fscking flame wars in groups that are intended for regional
> discussion and outnumbering, by 10:1, legitimate postings by abusing
> these remailers.
> You want to flame each other? Fine. Just don't use an anonymous
> remailer.
> You've been warned.
How is mass canceling:
A) morally acceptable for protected speech (sorry fella, as much as you don't
like flame wars, they're legal)
B) Some SUp3R S3kRit T3KnEq that only you know of? (wow... you're so 31337 that
you can write a cancel bot!) Cancel bots are old hat.
c) Not going to get you booted for net.abuse?
> If you don't take this seriously I will give those who are pissed off about
> the abuse the tools to nuke those who abuse all the way to Mars and leave
> a thousand points of light on impact.
So, doing something wrong, releasing a cancel bot to the public makes your
actions right? The ends justifies the means then?
You're idea is personally morally repugnant to me. Whats wrong with fsking
killfiles? And who made you the net.police?
> I figure it will take me no more than one day of coding and testing to
> complete the modifications.
> Your move.
No, its yours. You obviously think your actions would NOT be justified
by releasing such a tool to the public, or you would have already done
it. That fact that you hesitate at all either means you can not do
what so say and/or that you know mass cancelations is WRONG.
Either way, your threat disgusts me.
- --
Shinn.net Anonymous Remailer Admin
PGP Key 1 ID: 0xD8D5B063 PGP Key 2 ID: 0x3C41F029
Key 1 fingerprint = C069 47E0 DF19 823F 2E34 393F 8A4E EC97
Key 2 fingerprint = A79A C4D7 F859 2F1D 26BE 5B34 9B34 0B29
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQEVAwUBOZM6xMQaFjc8QfApAQG9Twf/UDONZEss4n49KXoQVn6pcdSMR34SMbWY
S2GZ82Q2/OrJwTpE42irxQD2xm9sHYmzo0eKduAJZink1toxaTQQe2rSrPDNArnj
Vqd/Xwh3PbSg7J8emv/rJjXf3n8gtAc6ZCekxl9k8sXBh1MBEqWIZPSl7QAN6093
s9ZwnUehrb9ma9fKo88mWrPhvW1s76PuIoMOPtwryd88XO8Dh/zUDzcBv8BFn5iV
lX/QiztfuQvPBWD2gHlpU8PUvDW5+4wuMmzEpCMo8Rx4YoHYepPCLn7zfZDJRde3
3USlsLOBIzbuMiESHzS/apvgy4JrMbTV+g9o24jDGOyCK5Cl+/WFWg==
=QXsH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to
In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
> I used to run an ISP and before that a Usenet machine (all the way back into
> the mid 1980s). People would occasionally bitch that "their" anonymous
> postings (at the time through Julf's remailer) were cancelled by one of
> our users, and demand that I yank their account. I laughed loudly at such
> demands, since by definition the act of posting through a remailer makes it
> impossible to claim later on that the posting in question is yours.
Oh simply not true! Have you not heard of signing your posts as I do mine?
It is possible to prove that a post was yours. It is more difficult to
prove you did not send the cancel post yourself, but you CAN prove, if you
choose to, that you sent a post and that it was NOT forged.
> Without the standing of authorship, you can't argue that "your" work was
> destroyed.
And you can prove authorship as this post so CLEARLY demonstrates, so
your entire point is moot.
- --
Shinn.net Anonymous Remailer Admin
PGP Key 1 ID: 0xD8D5B063 PGP Key 2 ID: 0x3C41F029
Key 1 fingerprint = C069 47E0 DF19 823F 2E34 393F 8A4E EC97
Key 2 fingerprint = A79A C4D7 F859 2F1D 26BE 5B34 9B34 0B29
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQEVAwUBOZNBAcQaFjc8QfApAQFvzgf/XDybSMyxg4/lQVrDDEO1SVgLwU/7ndGg
iC8InhMxWAylvDyiP0vxoi8sWPlCF1tEZv+hYvbXZYBayLTyOc6HUpEtdIKuXELb
ni0EsdI52DL094JnfRUzrbVDjfiE+gWnE2t2GZNNRls073hkEzWQnTDRi8Dl7Inw
UCx9VJrpiw6puKUTsmM6T7+E+T4gILj9koRXVgrPZJ5PO+SXB4gImdnhoOCxmjZ9
tgy+aX0YLXsxwAW/xf6ZDx/zGX1qXCO/Pb+KzMsBBhncFE2en02i5go1adblLEch
f6l4j0dJaQb6lPTjcyBXvoADnvL+pdnBJIKZkBGSNiuHIECb8mA6rQ==
=y4Sr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to
In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
>>Gee, so you can't manage to get a reply to a message, asking if the post
>>was real?
> Not relavent Wilbur.
> If its "valid" then why not post it from your own account?
> The only reason not to do that is to maintain the ability to SELECTIVELY
> deny authorship.
Uh... hello!? Thats what anonymity is ALL ABOUT. Its a constitutionally
protected right to not be required to identify yourself as the author of
something. Your speaking in tautologies and you're really missing the
point. Of course anonymity is about denying authorship!
You want to force the author of a text to be identified, and what you seem
to be missing is that its a human right NOT to be forced to identify
yourself when speaking. You might be upset by that, but you're really
painting your actions as being morally bankrupt when you think its appropriate
to deny *EVERYONE* else on earth the right to communicate anonymously,
because you have some kind of obsession with holding one person to what
you *think* are their words. The ends does not justify your personal
jihad against this ONE person.
> In other words, to abuse with impunity and not be held to account for it.
No, not to abuse with impunity. Your trying to assign moral values to a
concept, anonymity, that is morally neutral. Actions can be performed
anonymously that may or may not be ethical, that does NOT make all anonymous
actions *OR SPEECH* unethical and therefore immoral. So your conclusion
is totally illogical. You are throwing the proverbial baby out with the
bathwater and you're not even remotely considering the implications of a
world WITHOUT anonymity.
I'm guessing you live in a nice safe free country where you can speak your
mind all you want and not worry about people coming to your house in the
dead of night to take you away never to be seen again. So, this right is
probably unimportant to you and you do not consider it to be necessary
for anyone else to have it, which is understandable because you have no
context to look at the other side. No offense intended, but ignorance is
bliss for you. However, everyone on the internet, and in the world, is
not as lucky as you are and can not speak their minds as freely as you
can without the veil of anonymity. In many countries, they will be lose
their livelihoods and, yes, possibly their lives. Someone people *will*
abuse the veil of anonymity, but the lack of anonymity, unlike its
presence, can be deadly. The cost of living without anonymity is far
FAR too high.
- --
Shinn.net Anonymous Remailer Admin
PGP Key 1 ID: 0xD8D5B063 PGP Key 2 ID: 0x3C41F029
Key 1 fingerprint = C069 47E0 DF19 823F 2E34 393F 8A4E EC97
Key 2 fingerprint = A79A C4D7 F859 2F1D 26BE 5B34 9B34 0B29
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQEVAwUBOZM/X8QaFjc8QfApAQHEagf+LuWfws6/n8v+jBFm0HMMglxheb4aA83z
B5XNQ4Hc91qGnnXaou3twNvuEyGTyz9Z0fe7jsbfnQJpdm6AudeZuPrYJm9kCO+3
ylviKYRtMyKXDM2DI8pKb0FGLrYd7Q22jpliiUvrGC0FAWemt1PtIOlkuzo9wTd4
TXt2NNuieWYEyrstvvNd9O7xv1Eu53hcTaceUUp5tX7bOnXilmwrmhdSkonGJev6
JHDW9dlbShVw7sRevmeb/vNxNnk2ZapL/4K7RkUiLlLTYl6oyvGB6jGZKXpX/Iap
kXg6aGIpKMJv9Lgdr7XzgnWPz0YO1LE4/dptB2j3COJI+jve9PsGkw==
=NqkM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Karl Denninger
<ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
>> Stop the fscking flame wars in groups that are intended for regional
>> discussion and outnumbering, by 10:1, legitimate postings by abusing
>> these remailers.
>
>> You want to flame each other? Fine. Just don't use an anonymous
>> remailer.
>
>> You've been warned.
>
>How is mass canceling:
>
>A) morally acceptable for protected speech (sorry fella, as much as you don't
>like flame wars, they're legal)
So is a cancel. Its a suggestion, just like your post is.
>B) Some SUp3R S3kRit T3KnEq that only you know of? (wow... you're so 31337 that
>you can write a cancel bot!) Cancel bots are old hat.
>c) Not going to get you booted for net.abuse?
Of course not. I'm not going to run it.
>> If you don't take this seriously I will give those who are pissed off about
>> the abuse the tools to nuke those who abuse all the way to Mars and leave
>> a thousand points of light on impact.
>
>So, doing something wrong, releasing a cancel bot to the public makes your
>actions right? The ends justifies the means then?
What's wrong about it?
Oh, I get it. Free speech only applies when its speech you AGREE with.
When its not then by God, we have to call it wrong and try to BAN IT!
Got it.
>You're idea is personally morally repugnant to me. Whats wrong with fsking
>killfiles? And who made you the net.police?
What part of "I suggest you kill this message" do you find to be contrary to
the ideal of free speech?
>> I figure it will take me no more than one day of coding and testing to
>> complete the modifications.
>
>> Your move.
>
>No, its yours. You obviously think your actions would NOT be justified
>by releasing such a tool to the public, or you would have already done
>it. That fact that you hesitate at all either means you can not do
>what so say and/or that you know mass cancelations is WRONG.
>
>Either way, your threat disgusts me.
Good. Be good and disgusted.
Hypocrite.
Karl Denninger
<ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
>
>>>was real?
>
>> Not relavent Wilbur.
>
>> If its "valid" then why not post it from your own account?
>
>> The only reason not to do that is to maintain the ability to SELECTIVELY
>> deny authorship.
>
>Uh... hello!? Thats what anonymity is ALL ABOUT. Its a constitutionally
>protected right to not be required to identify yourself as the author of
>something. Your speaking in tautologies and you're really missing the
>point. Of course anonymity is about denying authorship!
Is it?
Not here, it seems.
Why not tag ALL the posts "anon...@whereever.xxx" and PROHIBIT changing
the FROM line then?
Why, because you don't want to REALLY have anonymous posts, right?
>You want to force the author of a text to be identified, and what you seem
>to be missing is that its a human right NOT to be forced to identify
>yourself when speaking.
You're lying. See above.
>The ends does not justify your personal
>jihad against this ONE person.
Again, you miss the point.
You may post "anonymously".
I may ask people not to listen, by sending cancels.
Who "wins" depends on the whim of the news admin, no?
>The cost of living without anonymity is far
>FAR too high.
You CAN prevent it from being abused, or at least lessen the risk.
I provided several examples of how.
Your refusal to do so speaks volumes.
Karl Denninger
<ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
>
>> the mid 1980s). People would occasionally bitch that "their" anonymous
>> postings (at the time through Julf's remailer) were cancelled by one of
>> our users, and demand that I yank their account. I laughed loudly at such
>> demands, since by definition the act of posting through a remailer makes it
>> impossible to claim later on that the posting in question is yours.
>
>Oh simply not true! Have you not heard of signing your posts as I do mine?
>It is possible to prove that a post was yours. It is more difficult to
>prove you did not send the cancel post yourself, but you CAN prove, if you
>choose to, that you sent a post and that it was NOT forged.
>
>> Without the standing of authorship, you can't argue that "your" work was
>> destroyed.
>
>And you can prove authorship as this post so CLEARLY demonstrates, so
>your entire point is moot.
If you do that then posting through an anonymous server is pointless.
You may as well post from your own ISP.
The people abusing this mechanism aren't interested in signing their posts.
They're interested in claiming that they posted something when it suits
them, and denying it when THAT suits them. For the same posts, to different
people, at different times.
Nice try, no donut.
ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to
In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
>>Uh... hello!? Thats what anonymity is ALL ABOUT. Its a constitutionally
>>protected right to not be required to identify yourself as the author of
>>something. Your speaking in tautologies and you're really missing the
>>point. Of course anonymity is about denying authorship!
> Is it?
In the case of a purely anonymous post, the author is by definition totally
hiding their identity and assigning no authorship to that work. Now, towards
the issue of pseudonyms or pen names, there is some mechanism (especially with
digital signatures) to at least validate that an author of a work is probably
who they say they are.
So yes, in general, its about denying the identity of the author to the reader.
> Why not tag ALL the posts "anon...@whereever.xxx" and PROHIBIT changing
> the FROM line then?
I don't allow anyone to change the from for posts from my remailer.
> Why, because you don't want to REALLY have anonymous posts, right?
Not at all. I think you are lumping *all* remailers into the same category.
I do not allow users to change the e-mail part of the from line so that it
is obvious the message is coming from my remailer, and further (As will all
remailers) there is a clear disclaimer in the header that the message
senders identity is not known to the MTA - and therefore that you should not
rely on that information to identify the sender (nor should you ever rely
on that information alone to identify the sender of a message, as you know
from lines are trivial to forge and with so many open relays these days
it pretty easy to do a complete forgery that might even fool a clueful person).
>>You want to force the author of a text to be identified, and what you seem
>>to be missing is that its a human right NOT to be forced to identify
>>yourself when speaking.
> You're lying. See above.
No I'm not. You've jumped to a totally unfounded conclusion. I do not allow
my users to forge from: lines. You would do well to know the facts *before*
you make hypostatic leaps.
>>The ends does not justify your personal
>>jihad against this ONE person.
> Again, you miss the point.
> You may post "anonymously".
> I may ask people not to listen, by sending cancels.
That is NOT asking people not to listen, that is CENSORSHIP. You do not have
the *RIGHT* to CENSOR someone elses words. Do you not understand that? Where
do you get off thinking that you have the moral right to decide what *OTHER*
people should read?
Do you not see the moral bankruptcy in this part of your argument?
You sound like a reasonable person (otherwise I wouldn't bother), but I really
fail to see where you arrived at the conclusion that you are someone how
morally justified in canceling posts. If you want a moderated newsgroup, you
know what to do - and that does not include canceling posts ad hoc that you
do not think other people should read.
>>The cost of living without anonymity is far
>>FAR too high.
> You CAN prevent it from being abused, or at least lessen the risk.
Yes, and I have taken what I consider to be reasonable measures to
prevent abuse and keep an open mind about how I might improve the
model.
> I provided several examples of how.
My news server appears to expired out that message, so if you would not
mind please repeat those examples and I will sincerely consider them.
Perhaps you might have some useful suggestions that I had not thought
of. However, mass cancelations are not my idea of an example worthy
of endorsing and your even suggesting it make me less inclined to
listen to anything you have to say - but I will do my best to hear
you out (still, your suggestion definitely puts you in the extremist
camp).
> Your refusal to do so speaks volumes.
Nonsense. I do extraordinary things to prevent abuse. From flood control, to
duplicate detection, inbound IP based throttling, known spam source filtering,
RBL, RSS and ORBS subscriptions and so on. Your solution, mass cancelations
is horrid and immoral IMO - and would do more harm than good (WAY more harm).
You would destroy all anonymous speech thru your mass canceling jihad for
what? So you can chill the speech of ONE person? Doesn't that strike you
as a bit EXTREME?!
That speaks volumes about you as some sort of lunatic. Can't you see that?
If you sincerely want remailer operators to listen, you could start by
losing the rhetoric.
- --
Shinn.net Anonymous Remailer Admin
PGP Key 1 ID: 0xD8D5B063 PGP Key 2 ID: 0x3C41F029
Key 1 fingerprint = C069 47E0 DF19 823F 2E34 393F 8A4E EC97
Key 2 fingerprint = A79A C4D7 F859 2F1D 26BE 5B34 9B34 0B29
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQEVAwUBOZNuKcQaFjc8QfApAQEtYQgArwmK3SFI2dtrkKp9aMOUc7pbQlnpgYHo
wzwnvdhG7kgDLSjFpaaGNoRRilVHzIdNglpaWwHbwQjJMsnqkMlMDWmwEFUFatSS
MBUX7ZDTKKUWAMx6hIzP/2tWl/hmGBYT5/3wf++Ixhq39iCW8m90tIRc4oWPjRsv
OA6iccNblmnkG9y1InRm1aLv8HQGb0jFsuFEogkPL6kK/zuoNjTo8w7U8Taw9y/r
LQ1ZzZnUqNEybNzYEKYNnmPIEKn7Q/1a2KKo9i2nbAsPrHsqLG6guAyUWoi2qVio
n+tgfyLtUvbliRwJLRRc0Oup8nzvIC1iYmfgxAKrpDSqfb/qKFKwcg==
=jp1F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to
In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
> I do understand the legitimate need for anonymous posting services.
I think you understand the need, but not the cost that society can not
help but incur to ensure anonymity. There is a cost, abuse, that is
simply non-trivial to solve.
Let me be blunt: I personally would like nothing more than to see
anonymity used for its higher purposes, political speech, whistle
blowing, outing nasty cults, art, science, literature and so on. I
would also like to see it used to protect the privacy of everyone on
earth, to protect the purchasing habits (should they should choose)
from anyone (including their governments... ESPECIALLY their governments),
their browsing habits, and so on.
I would also like to see a world where it is not possible for people
to use that veil of anonymity to threaten others with death, to intimidate
people, to harass them and to commit serious crimes (I'm sure there are
other things I would also prefer people not do) - however, I do not see
how we can have both of these cases.
It is VERY difficult to make the veil strong, and yet make it possible to
either pierce it or to narrow its scope so that its only used when the
content of the speech is non-offensive. The remailer community has and
continues to think long and hard about how to make remailers less and less
suceptible to abuse. The problem is that most of the time the cure is
worse than the disease.
I would be curious to hear what your proposal is. Again, perhaps you
might have something constructive to add to the discussion. I certainly
do not have a monopoly on the truth or on good ideas.
> But
> this is balanced by the fact that when it gets abused in certain areas,
> it needs to be stopped.
Only if the cure is not worse than the disease. You have to accept the
fact that not all speech can be stopped (or SHOULD be stopped) given the
incredibly broad definition of "abuse" when related to speech on the
internet - and lets call a spade a spade here. We ARE talking about
speech, not action. Its offensive speech that appears to be unacceptable
to you and in those cases offensive speech is protected speech, no matter
how irritating it is to you and no matter how much you may think the
world would be better off without it. The consequences of such actions,
outlawing or preventing any offensive speech, is not acceptable.
> Nobody with half a brain can argue that the current flame wars being
> conducted via these remailers, and the SPECIFIC abuse in these groups,
> is somehow "legitimate".
Why is not legitimate to have a flame war? Because you and I think its
childish and a waste of bandwidth? Its STILL protected speech and
obviously its important to the flamers, no matter how absurd and useless
their digression into Ad Hominem certainly is. Floods, on the other
hand, are generally DoS attacks and I would agree that something should
be done about them - and I do my best to prevent them via technical means.
> I have no quarrel with a place for such anonymous "whistleblower" activities
> to take place, and a means to do so. But the regional newsgroups are not an
> appropriate place for them, nor are the general discussion groups dealing
> with some of these issues.
Why? Because you say so? Thats not a good enough reason. Are you really
suggesting that there will NEVER be and is NOT *ANY* reason to speak
anonymously on those groups? Can you really say that and *KNOW* that you
will never be wrong?
I doubt it seriously that you could or would.
> There has to be a way to resolve this problem.
No, we would *like* there to be a way, there does not *have* to be a way.
I would like to be able to live for forever, and I'm sure there are people
that would like to think there has to be a way to resolve this problem of
death - but wishing does not make it so.
I think you will have to accept the fact that there is some level of
offensive speech you will will not be able to keep from reading.
> 1. If your software was asked to send more than, oh, two postings in
> one day to any specific newsgroup that it would ban that group from
> further postings for 24 hours.
Mine already throttles as best it can, however your limit is a bit too low to
allow for any sort of regular banter on usenet, you also may be discounting
the fact that remailers chain messages. Which means the output point does
not have any way of measuring context to know that the 100 messages it is
sending to one newsgroup came from 1 person, or 100 persons. Inbound points
can do some throttling to prevent this (I do this as do others) but the
model requires the injection points to do this, since by design the output
remailers do not know *who* sent the message, so they can't figure out if
one person is posting alot or if the newsgroup is just really busy.
The problem is more complex than I think you give it credit for. To try and
reduce the obvious case of flooding, my mail2news gateway looks at the content
of the message to determine if its a duplicate or if its too similiar to
a previous message before it sends it on - and keeps a hash table of this
information for months to further reduce UCE, Floods and obvious abuse. So,
in that context, some of what you ask for is already happening. As far as
putting an arbitrary limit on the number of posts to a newsgroup, I don't see
how that would work - since the context of the number of posts to allow is
not really available to the output remailer, since it doesn't know what "too
much" is for one newsgroup or one user.
> 2. Prohibit crossposting entirely.
I limit crossposts to 5 newsgroups. Prohibiting it seems excessive to me. You
crosspost, so why shouldn't an anonymous or pseudo-anonymous person be allowed
to do the same?
> 3. Do not permit people to set the "FROM" header. It serves no purpose
> in an anonymous environment. Instead set it to a robot on your
> server that would reply with "the source is intentionally cloaked
> and no person can lay claim to the content represented in any
> message with this source address, as they have intentionally and
> willfully shielded their identity."
My remailer and gateway does this now.
- --
Shinn.net Anonymous Remailer Admin
PGP Key 1 ID: 0xD8D5B063 PGP Key 2 ID: 0x3C41F029
Key 1 fingerprint = C069 47E0 DF19 823F 2E34 393F 8A4E EC97
Key 2 fingerprint = A79A C4D7 F859 2F1D 26BE 5B34 9B34 0B29
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQEVAwUBOZNz/cQaFjc8QfApAQGQgQf7B+mDLAwIVcWZMa/Lt6nbwDA2WeL1+CSs
8XGXere6UY+cfjz2zGd2K0LhDE2VKQmDtny4WDIhXnh+JCFFgEK27E16zAx0HNFF
IQKjD5ZRP/6vuFcpEPYQgzlMn9yKaHnZffoMbfs5veCt5Lr3JURZnFWsDo36Dgr0
SYZsgp7BRJhCrp2VVdmFfIo0if2uG8JirlQg4VYe3M8KznhAGQLXuVt8F3k1gi87
tThl+xlke2/VZWSRRGiqMtjqEvd6FRKGMmIgrebeu3VhQ6Rmj7oDewB/2hg5I63l
6knwrNA38X1+nKWApJBmu3jlOZhcP6vpRMSh2VZjQWMYaFYC9glnQQ==
=PfYN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to
In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
>>Before you claim you can be tracked because of your host, that isn't a
>>given. Understand that there is no way to positively tag a users ID to
>>an IP with any ISP, nor should there ever be (See
>>http://www.cotse.com/column1.htm for my reasoning on why).
> Oh yes there is and yes there absolutely should be.
> I ran one of these things (an ISP) for a long time Stephen. I could
> absolutely, positively, identify what account a posting came from.
But you do not know who is at the keyboard - and THATS the point.
> Every single time. If I got subpoenaed (and occasionally I did) I
> could provide a legally-defensible trace that would lead right back to
> the TELEPHONE NUMBER of the person placing the call into our POP.
And prove nothing unless that person admitted that they were the one
online or got caught in the act. I worked with the Secret Service on
just those sorts of cases and without either one of those cases, all
the information in the world from an ISP isn't worth jack if that
person wasn't at the keyboard and you can't prove it (which, in your
case you really can't).
> Several times I did exactly that, and people got nailed (and good) for
> their abusive activities from our system. In one particular case that
> I remember well (due to the particulars) a person got nailed for fraudulent
> activity across state lines and prosecuted (I have no idea if they actually
> were jailed, but I bet they were as the evidence was pretty damning!)
Prosecution does not equal guilt. The fact that you do not know if they
were jailed, makes my point. Your information MIGHT help prove the guilt
of someone, but it does not prove the guilt by itself. I have seem it happen
hundreds of times and its so obvious why it should be that way - you really
DON'T know for sure if that person was at the keyboard. You can infer it,
but thats not good enough to get beyond probably cause with a good lawyer.
> Further, I'm not (and never have) argued making it ILLEGAL to be anonymous.
> On the contrary. I'm arguing that IF you are going to have "anonymous"
> postings, then they MUST BE ANONYMOUS, and the system should be designed
> to discourge abusive uses of that technology!
What if its not possible to prevent all forms of, what you call, abuse? Then
what?
> Allowing people to plaster SOMEONE ELSE's moniker on a posting isn't an act
> of "anonymous posting." Its an act of constructive fraud and forgery, with
> you as a willing co-conspirator to the act.
NO ONE OWNS MONIKERS! Its not fraud to have the same name as someone else,
and if you are too clueless to read the from: line in its entireity that is
YOUR PROBLEM. I sign my posts so its clear that my words are mine,
because I *KNOW BETTER* and so should you BTW.
> Anonymous posting serves a legitimate purpose. You get no argument from me
> on that.
Well, thats good to hear. But I still think you are making a very bad assumption
that its possible to prevent all forms of abuse without significantly harming
the legitimate need for anonymity. So far, your suggestions have either already
been put into use by most if not all remailers or are not practical - OR effective.
> But what you're providing is not anonymous posting - you're providing a
> shield behind which to commit criminal and civil offenses, along with just
> plain old-fashioned rock-throwing. You're analagous to the bar owner who
> hangs out a sign saying "do your crack here - curtains to pull around your
> table and alarms to announce the arrival of the police available on request!"
Your titling at straw men here. Its not like that at all, and you know it.
Anonymous speech can be abused. Its not possible to prevent all forms of
abuse. Thats the cost.
>>I could come from any ISP and not be traceable to a person. That is
>>because of the technology. As long as I can log into another machine
>>from the one I sit at this will not go away. You can't say, that is a
>>valid account so I know exactly who you are. This is a valid account and
>>a valid name, is it really mine? Do you know for sure? 100%?
> Do I need to know with 100% certainty? No, I do not.
In a court of law you do, well at least beyond a reasonable doubt. And a good
lawyer can beat your evidence any day. Like I said before, I've seen it happen
hundreds of times on both sides of court room.
> What I do know is
> that you dialed into server port <X> from telephone number <Y> and presented
> thereupon a set of credentials that were registered to user <Z>. What you
> do from that point forward is attributed to that tuple of information,
> and that tuple of information tracks back to a person who signed a legal
> agreement to do (and not to do) certain things.
Unless I steal that information you (or guess your password, or own the ISP, or
find a hole in security model, etc), and spoof the caller ID info - or I
drop a trojan or your box, and have it do evil for things as you. Again, its
too easy to beat the wrap if you try hard enough with just ISP logs. You
need more than that to really nail someone that doesn't want to get caught
and won't confess - or otherwise doesn't leave a nice forensics trail on
their system (and the clueful ones DON'T). So in the end, you can only
infer their identity. (Do you have kids? Haven't you ever had them log on
with daddies ISP account?)
>>Anyway, cancel wars involve DtR, in case you are not aware, DtR reposts
>>cancelled posts (see news.admin.net-abuse.usenet). What this ends up
>>causing is a worse mess than the one you have. It's cleaner to kill
>>file. Imagine everyone cancelling what they don't want to see.
> DtR does not resurrect anonymous postings. At least it didn't the last time
> I was in the middle of this nonsense. Things coming from cotse should be
> per-se exempt from DtR activity, since they are by definition not
> attributable to a person.
But, they CAN be attributable to an identity with digital signatures, so in
that case, your point is moot.
> Maybe I should post the code from your anonymous server, once a day, for a
> month - along with detailed instructions on how to use it..... :-)
All that would prove is that you're a hypocrite.
> Be careful what you support Stephen, it might bite you in your own ass.
You would be wise to take your own medicine there. That tool might be
used to cancel all your posts too. And then you would only have yourself
to blame for its consequences.
- --
Shinn.net Anonymous Remailer Admin
PGP Key 1 ID: 0xD8D5B063 PGP Key 2 ID: 0x3C41F029
Key 1 fingerprint = C069 47E0 DF19 823F 2E34 393F 8A4E EC97
Key 2 fingerprint = A79A C4D7 F859 2F1D 26BE 5B34 9B34 0B29
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQEVAwUBOZN4PsQaFjc8QfApAQHybwf+J+CXSizn3q9/XC7KRGb+qwc2mxbp04cH
XRT+HdUAclAcgAMZlqNfxcC47SzTk7KOGJUWg6SffsTUfUeguEUYXhFeX14xYGzx
NGLDgJv7lLoipKQQfuAkvlHOvqZRREXcMBnG5MpM/Ivi+CLApBoY+3yPTuDoXTEA
/0lbAkY9kOsgTHbkBop4ypvU0tK1A1ffoBe5y1uB9W67kvH0AshaBkllGIfsguKH
lcTcyhFdxEWjVoExsy1KFuM2vlhhm/nxG7J5T0ccxXg7k2gpGgrt4y0r1dLyxXm2
alWKC+5hJz5zyp6VCPxrMzGF6sFaIkNLAON17K/37utw+tD02tl5zg==
=UMzx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to
In alt.privacy.anon-server Farley <far...@subdimension.com> wrote:
> Admittedly Michael Shinn could sue me for forging his email header,
> but I'd be prepared to risk a lot on the basis that's he's nowhere
> near as petty as you and wouldn't waste his time.
You can sure of that. :-)
> I'm so certain of this latter that you can be assured I will do it if
> you pursue you course of action.
Please, be my guest. :-)
- --
Shinn.net Anonymous Remailer Admin
PGP Key 1 ID: 0xD8D5B063 PGP Key 2 ID: 0x3C41F029
Key 1 fingerprint = C069 47E0 DF19 823F 2E34 393F 8A4E EC97
Key 2 fingerprint = A79A C4D7 F859 2F1D 26BE 5B34 9B34 0B29
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQEVAwUBOZN5nMQaFjc8QfApAQHBiggAp7eYynSGdnuMcomt6qjWjy36UtKjf/3T
JfxxDgfrw9hWr5khx6PYGxZBJEkDdiMO87ZkNhC7fAqN+RGOgEJWJllmapyjRa/s
hdscYyVtgM/p1Jh4CdEBmkL91HWeyz5spKTsUrmLJcTcuIMpULnjFF2OSmP4XCXK
eGP4B/Xg1/cajUTnOMg+7MFBjH/Xq2d0wBEiiucBp/4p5JEy90XAOz4LUARTa/ti
K8Gavreu0lAgCLQM6daLA2I2FWzswoul0Hc7rTKufZ8bO8d4H9N0MaTW0XrGl72O
gYV1JqFoYbDX9/Tb0eubOJMq0Gafpia1HHKiVZhFFv8cjTS4YC8zHA==
=fyVs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to
In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
> One of the other potential consequences of this is that news servers start
> demanding PGP signed messages. Now THAT would solve the abuse problem (and
> destroy anonymous posting as well), wouldn't it? :-)
No, you can still be anonymous (admittedly it would be a nym) in that your
REAL identity would be unknown, but it would not be possible to have plausible
deniability - FOR A KNOWN IDENTITY, but there is nothing to stop someone from
just creating a key, posting a message that is otherwise anonymous, and then
discarding the key.
It would not be possible though to impersonate someone, which I personally would
welcome on usenet as it would put alot of these absurd discussions about the
validity or invalidity of from: lines to rest one an for all. from: lines do
not validate identity and no one should rely on them for identity verification.
But, I'm sure you know that - its too bad other people do not.
>>Admittedly Michael Shinn could sue me for forging his email header,
>>but I'd be prepared to risk a lot on the basis that's he's nowhere
>>near as petty as you and wouldn't waste his time.
>>
>>I'm so certain of this latter that you can be assured I will do it if
>>you pursue you course of action.
> You would have no basis for "taking action" against me for sending a REQUEST
> to a machine to delete something.
That remains open to debate in a court of law. Many would argue that he would
have a case, if he could prove you did it, but again, there is not precedence
either way - so its too early to say he would have no basis for taking action
against you.
> You've already documented your lack of standing through your investigation
> that such cancels are already routinely ignored by some server admins :-)
But not all server admins. :-)
- --
Shinn.net Anonymous Remailer Admin
PGP Key 1 ID: 0xD8D5B063 PGP Key 2 ID: 0x3C41F029
Key 1 fingerprint = C069 47E0 DF19 823F 2E34 393F 8A4E EC97
Key 2 fingerprint = A79A C4D7 F859 2F1D 26BE 5B34 9B34 0B29
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQEVAwUBOZN6wcQaFjc8QfApAQGs9Af/fKgdlW8I5Xlg3GruU96T9obYqKD9Os4C
vCs+xTeCHzbAdwvYXhvYWzOwbS3PH71EKiovXy/9iH6jYUz4YL+4Y+ZCg9qda3US
ruD6Sa6HI65jn/DyGL6rbyuZX9VMzHs5SaQEl81UAQc9UerBlUyaaTKZb9P2nIyI
OZPtRCkufJusZTd63AriQ21uLN1oAJSuRh2gz0AP7CCF6ZA8DJOpMuC1piAWF9bB
bN8HLomb5Tw7xyIvKIiqECnhQjlLvUe1ZTAwxGoQCLNr0+blh9pVPLjX5eRTW3Lx
3lroCdx2u4G4YT2iSxMncu4gWSoDbLy87/TCS9Wz6f5TcKDNx7NozQ==
=WdB+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to
In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
>>You have some strange ideas of freedom of speech. Why don't you take this
>>discussion to alt.anon and see how they trash you on it.
> Freedom of speech includes the freedom to ask others not to listen, or to
> remove things that are written somewhere.
Where did you get this idea from? The freedom to ask others not to listen,
yes, but not the freedom to PREVENT them from listening, which seems to
what you are driving at. You are free to ask others whatever you want, but
not to compell them not to listen to someone elses speech. Nor do you have
the right to remove things that are written somewhere, unless its on your
personal property.
You really do have some notions about freedom of speech.
>>The process to change the charter of a public newsgroup is known.
>>Resurrecting the moderated newsgroup would remove the flame war from where
>>most people would post..
> Incorrect. It will not remove them from here, nor from any of the regional
> groups.
Sigh... and?
- --
Shinn.net Anonymous Remailer Admin
PGP Key 1 ID: 0xD8D5B063 PGP Key 2 ID: 0x3C41F029
Key 1 fingerprint = C069 47E0 DF19 823F 2E34 393F 8A4E EC97
Key 2 fingerprint = A79A C4D7 F859 2F1D 26BE 5B34 9B34 0B29
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQEVAwUBOZN8FsQaFjc8QfApAQFIhggAl5nOtjQ40Ylc76g8UBls4yymkHcMIV4Z
Nc2hNcnz2jRKcD8Si+CEyYObdBEVytylNJ+5b+a/3z+6xHSwq/yQKm8My/TtpxVQ
Mc9IMwMHKJETrCmwX8PGe1R++mDAa8oIWLjX2suPJQu9SjoUFGyZnAp6X245xYZI
YDo4/sKM5M9+LIIpIqdbxQjpX8mH9K8lamLkgYBrKzfnbZS71jcJSTQ64ByIglzG
W6Sm4AB0UHBmv88tKzUL+Vr3xPv1bw6GbPPeTTpTYSKJVczQedZkjDwEw1xaLttM
bI5T9g50Wm94yL61HKTd2nlsX1Wm+QW+QCh9p+IUS3Gzg6YqOPuY1w==
=pTMZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to
In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
>>And you can prove authorship as this post so CLEARLY demonstrates, so
>>your entire point is moot.
> If you do that then posting through an anonymous server is pointless.
No its not. What if I do not want you to know my REAL identity? This is
clearly the point you are repeatedly missing, so it bears repeating (and
I am not trying to be offensive, because I think this is the singular
point that you are not considering in) - it is entirely possible to
post and e-mail in a manner that makes it possible to reply to that
persons e-mail, and yet absolutely NEVER know their real identity and yet
positive verify that the message is not a forgery. Its called a nym,
and if you want the source code for it, just finger:
You still need remailers so handle the chainging, but in the case of a
nym you have a valid e-mail address, the messages are cryptographically
signed by both the user AND the nym remailer. So non-reputiation is
achieved and idetity verification is also achieved, without revealing
the persons real identity.
> You may as well post from your own ISP.
No, thats not terribly anonymous.
> The people abusing this mechanism aren't interested in signing their posts.
True, but thats not justification for denying everyone else the use of remailers
just because a handful of people are having a flame war that personally
irritates you.
> They're interested in claiming that they posted something when it suits
> them, and denying it when THAT suits them. For the same posts, to different
> people, at different times.
> Nice try, no donut.
Yes, its a pain that people can do that, thats life - and there isn't anything
you can do about it. You can just as easily claim that your kids were at the
keyboard writing your message, and there is little I can do to prove otherwise.
- --
Shinn.net Anonymous Remailer Admin
PGP Key 1 ID: 0xD8D5B063 PGP Key 2 ID: 0x3C41F029
Key 1 fingerprint = C069 47E0 DF19 823F 2E34 393F 8A4E EC97
Key 2 fingerprint = A79A C4D7 F859 2F1D 26BE 5B34 9B34 0B29
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQEVAwUBOZN9tMQaFjc8QfApAQFN2Af9Gq0JqnVVvTcl+nmAbQz4YluOkOB7o+GQ
j5kYkEF9wNO2bSjrHOpDvDSHB6Q/tIgAC4W4h9q9EOl9sULOMKvgQGeMLPAi3VUN
+ZuOVgR3/8B/eb2GlDo2osH5iraEI8QHk0G8oes6OH2BKXC04HD1rYZmJ/AqQez0
n8M+iHlJ6ryzGF7EMC7ydHAmEqefR/TNH+60SHzLExhQpZp8ub4DqesUr16WYnP+
n1Y9dNDlqnrvKE2NaD2dBUOrVi6N0K+x5apJA+wRxmCvSjJsEKGIES1rqsJGmu4/
kTcWjH5y0iHwZzR+x9RSb2qevo/3NCeTeoymg3OM6qYrtNJTAAIXRw==
=J70M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
fathers...@dragoncon.net
wrote:
>In article <39931e77....@news.monmouth.com>,
>Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
>>ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <AVUEEMLI3674...@nuther-planet.net>,
>>> <fathers...@dragoncon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Yes there is. I have a replyable, authentic e-mail address. Anyone
>>>>wishing to ascertain whether or not I'm the author of something can
>>>>freely contact me at the replyable address.
>>>
>>>No you don't.
>>>
>>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
>>>>Any address shown in the From header is unverified.
>>>
>>>There it is, right there.
>>>
>>>This posting came from Joe Buttfucko.
>>>
>>>You want to take ownership of your words? Post from Anet.
>>
>>Gee, so you can't manage to get a reply to a message, asking if the post
>>was real?
>
>Not relavent Wilbur.
>
>If its "valid" then why not post it from your own account?
>
>The only reason not to do that is to maintain the ability to SELECTIVELY
>deny authorship.
>
>In other words, to abuse with impunity and not be held to account for it.
>
While we're at it, let's ban the use of pay telephones as well. Since
someone can make a harassing phone call without having it traced back
to them, it stands to reason that the only reason people use pay
phones, is to abuse with impunity and not be held to account for it.
By your logic, anyway.
Karl Denninger
<ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
>
>>>Uh... hello!? Thats what anonymity is ALL ABOUT. Its a constitutionally
>>>protected right to not be required to identify yourself as the author of
>>>something. Your speaking in tautologies and you're really missing the
>>>point. Of course anonymity is about denying authorship!
>
>> Is it?
>
>In the case of a purely anonymous post, the author is by definition totally
>hiding their identity and assigning no authorship to that work. Now, towards
>the issue of pseudonyms or pen names, there is some mechanism (especially with
>digital signatures) to at least validate that an author of a work is probably
>who they say they are.
>
>So yes, in general, its about denying the identity of the author to the reader.
Not the way they're being abused here it isn't. Please be on topic with the
discussion at hand, not what might be done somewhere else under different
circumstances.
>> Why not tag ALL the posts "anon...@whereever.xxx" and PROHIBIT changing
>> the FROM line then?
>
>I don't allow anyone to change the from for posts from my remailer.
Then your remailer is not part of the problme being experienced HERE.
>> Why, because you don't want to REALLY have anonymous posts, right?
>
>Not at all. I think you are lumping *all* remailers into the same category.
No, I intend to release code that has a USER DEFINED set of headers and
contents (say, for example, regular expressions for you Unix folks) that
will result in a cancel being issued.
This will permit *precisely targeted* cancels to stop abuse in *specific*
groups issued by SPECIFIC remailers. It will NOT kill all remailers or
even a specific remailer in ALL groups.
(My clean-news code does, in fact, kill all binary postings. But it
requires a "channel feed" from INN or the equivalent in Diablo, since
it has to look at the entire news stream. This also means it pretty much
has to run on a server, due to the volume requirements, or, today, behind
something faster than a T1. Totally impractical for this use as a
consequence. That's why it needs to be modified - to connect over NNTP
and only grab HEADERS (which is all you need in this case) - turning it
into a very LOW BANDWIDTH piece of software suitable for running on any
Linux or FreeBSD net-connected box.)
The only reason its not yet out there is that I'm happy to debate this with
remailer operators FIRST to see if a reasonable set of accomodations can be
reached that will stop the abuse but not significant impair the legitimate
uses of their service.
If only some remailer operators make these changes, of course, that means
that I now know which are likely to be the issuers of the abuse in the
future...(those who refuse to play "nice") which is valuable information
for the regular expression file :-)
>I do not allow users to change the e-mail part of the from line so that it
>is obvious the message is coming from my remailer, and further (As will all
>remailers) there is a clear disclaimer in the header that the message
>senders identity is not known to the MTA - and therefore that you should not
>rely on that information to identify the sender (nor should you ever rely
>on that information alone to identify the sender of a message, as you know
>from lines are trivial to forge and with so many open relays these days
>it pretty easy to do a complete forgery that might even fool a clueful person).
That's true. But that doesn't stop people from claiming they "authored"
something due to the FROM line, and some remailers allow you to set it.
If yours does not then you're probably "distasteful" to the particular
imbecile who is abusing them in this group.
>>>You want to force the author of a text to be identified, and what you seem
>>>to be missing is that its a human right NOT to be forced to identify
>>>yourself when speaking.
>
>> You're lying. See above.
>
>No I'm not. You've jumped to a totally unfounded conclusion. I do not allow
>my users to forge from: lines. You would do well to know the facts *before*
>you make hypostatic leaps.
You would do well to actually follow the entire debate instead of falling
for the flame-bait of the abuser who we are trying to apply some RAID to
over here.
>> Again, you miss the point.
>
>> You may post "anonymously".
>
>> I may ask people not to listen, by sending cancels.
>
>That is NOT asking people not to listen, that is CENSORSHIP.
No, it is free speech. I am speaking (to the computers of the net) just as
you are. I am asking them to remove what you said. They may or may not
comply with my request, at the WHIM OF THE OWNER OF THAT MACHINE.
> You do not have
>the *RIGHT* to CENSOR someone elses words.
I most certainly do have the RIGHT to request that someone not listen to
you. The only person with the RIGHT to make that decision is the OWNER OF
THE NEWS MACHINE. Not you, not me, not someone else.
All *I* can do, just as all *YOU* can do, is issue REQUESTS to machines that
we do not own. We can do nothing more.
> Do you not understand that? Where
>do you get off thinking that you have the moral right to decide what *OTHER*
>people should read?
I am making no such decision. I am making suggestions. The people who OWN
the machines make DECISIONS.
Where do you get the IDEA that you can DECIDE what someone else does with
THEIR private property? You OWN your computer(s). You DO NOT own the news
servers on the Internet. No way, no how. You might own ONE, but you don't
own ALL OF THEM.
You, like I, like the rest of us out here, can issue only SUGGESTIONS.
Those SUGGESTIONS may be honored or ignored, at the whim of the OWNER of
those machines.
I had this debate a THOUSAND times when I ran an ISP. The bottom line was
always the same - my computer, my rules. If you don't like it then fuck
off. And yes, that was PRECISELY how I expressed that position.
If I had a nickel for every time some asshole tried to tell me that I *HAD*
to take this group or that group, or that I was CENSORING their "right" to
get kiddie porn, stolen software or scans from men's magazines (this was
before MP3s became all the rage, natch) I'd be so rich I could buy the
entire country of Cuba!
MY COMPUTER, MY CHOICE.
Beyond the boundaries of MY COMPUTER, all I can do is issue SUGGESTIONS.
I can no more "censor" you on someone ELSE's computer (unless I
intentionally crash it) than I can piss on the moon. I can ASK the owner
to remove your speech, but the decision rests with the OWNER, not with me
(or you, for that matter.)
>You sound like a reasonable person (otherwise I wouldn't bother), but I really
>fail to see where you arrived at the conclusion that you are someone how
>morally justified in canceling posts. If you want a moderated newsgroup, you
>know what to do - and that does not include canceling posts ad hoc that you
>do not think other people should read.
I cannot "cancel" a post. I can ASK that it be cancelled. That's all.
>> I provided several examples of how.
>
>My news server appears to expired out that message, so if you would not
>mind please repeat those examples and I will sincerely consider them.
Certainly:
The goals here are to:
1. Cut abusive use of remailers down to a level where it is lost
in the noise level from legitimate use.
2. NOT have to track individual users of those remailers (which
voids the concept of anonymous use in the first place) through
any database.
If you're willing to violate #2, then its easy, but since I assume you're
not (and neither are the others who run these things) we end up somewhat
limited in what we can do.
Ok, let's take a good look at what CAN be done:
1. Create a set of alt.* groups SPECIFICALLY for anonymous postings.
Generic names for them should be sufficient - "alt.whistle-blower.us",
etc. A couple hundred of these should be able to cover the gamut
fairly well.
2. Posting to those SPECIFIC groups is unbridled and unthrottled.
If you want to send 200 messages a day, go right ahead. Now there
is ALWAYS a place you can post "anonymously" for legitimate purpose.
Or not, for that matter. Sane people will probably stay out.
3. STRIP all URLs and things that APPEAR to be email addresses from
"anonymously" posted material. Yes, this is imperfect since its a
robot, but this prevents someone from posting "anonymously" but
either pretending to be someone else (real common) or using it
to spam for some service or other "reference". This leaves
straight textual messages intact. If you want to get fancy
pattern-match for phone numbers and other personally identifying
things that have easily-recognized formats (like SSNs) and rip
them out too.
4. DO NOT permit setting the FROM line or inserting any custom
headers into what you post. SUBJECT (filtered as (3) above)
goes through untouched, but the rest is stripped out and replaced
with a generic that, if replied to, gives you a robotic reply
specifying the particulars of how the remailer works AND THAT THE
SENDER HAS DISCLAIMED AUTHORSHIP BY USING IT.
5. Make known those conditions - that by using it you are DISCLAIMING
authorship. This prevents anyone from trying to argue that they
"sent" such a posting later. How? If you have a web interface
its easy. If not, the headers of the message should include
the very specific disclaimer itself, along with a footer as is
commonly done now.
6. Finally, THROTTLE anonymous postings to a single group to a small
number PER DAY (say, 2 or 3), and PROHIBIT crossposting entirely.
Since there are 30,000+ newsgroups, this really doesn't prevent much
- other than a CONCENTRATED use of a remailer in one place - which
is, incidentally, the hallmark of those who abuse them!
The above will make anonymous abuse disappear into the noise, but not
in any way significantly impact its use for legitimate purposes.
>Perhaps you might have some useful suggestions that I had not thought
>of.
See above.
>You would destroy all anonymous speech thru your mass canceling jihad for
>what? So you can chill the speech of ONE person? Doesn't that strike you
>as a bit EXTREME?!
I made no proposal to destroy ALL anonymous speech.
My proposal is to destroy "anonymous" speech that is:
1. Sent to a specific set of groups, in this case those dealing
with divorce, dad's rights and certain regional group sets
that have been the "spill over" for these flame wars, all
conducted largely by abusers using anonymous remailers.
AND
2. Is sourced from one or more remailers that permit abusive
tactics to be employed - specifically, large numbers of postings
in a day to a single group or set of groups, cross-posted articles,
and those that permit tampering with headers (with cotse being one
of these sources.)
IP-based inbound limiting, by the way, is worthless. Anyone intent on abuse
can use a web redirector and trivially get around your filters. You need to
throttle the OUTPUT into any given group, NO MATTER WHO CLAIMS TO BE SENDING
OR WHERE IT COMES FROM.
Given the HUGE diversity of groups, this is not an operative limit for
LEGITIMATE users of the service (do you really source 60,000 articles a
day?) but INSTANTLY prevents someone from posting 20 articles a day to
one group (or set of groups) for the purposes of abuse.
>That speaks volumes about you as some sort of lunatic. Can't you see that?
>If you sincerely want remailer operators to listen, you could start by
>losing the rhetoric.
What rhetoric?
I'm not responsible for you coming into this discussion due to the abuser
cross-posting the original discussion outside its venue, and your failure to
follow the thread back to its original source.
Go back and read this again - at least you should understand what I
*actually* intend to do, rather than what a particular gnat who is one of
the abusers wants you to THINK I'm going to do.
Karl Denninger
<ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
>
>>>Before you claim you can be tracked because of your host, that isn't a
>>>given. Understand that there is no way to positively tag a users ID to
>>>an IP with any ISP, nor should there ever be (See
>>>http://www.cotse.com/column1.htm for my reasoning on why).
>
>> Oh yes there is and yes there absolutely should be.
>
>> I ran one of these things (an ISP) for a long time Stephen. I could
>> absolutely, positively, identify what account a posting came from.
>
>But you do not know who is at the keyboard - and THATS the point.
Not relavent to the issue, really.
>> Every single time. If I got subpoenaed (and occasionally I did) I
>> could provide a legally-defensible trace that would lead right back to
>> the TELEPHONE NUMBER of the person placing the call into our POP.
>
>And prove nothing unless that person admitted that they were the one
>online or got caught in the act. I worked with the Secret Service on
>just those sorts of cases and without either one of those cases, all
>the information in the world from an ISP isn't worth jack if that
>person wasn't at the keyboard and you can't prove it (which, in your
>case you really can't).
If it came from your telephone line it'll get you busted and your computer
searched. You had better hope your 'clean room' disk scrubber works REAL
well.
>> Several times I did exactly that, and people got nailed (and good) for
>> their abusive activities from our system. In one particular case that
>> I remember well (due to the particulars) a person got nailed for fraudulent
>> activity across state lines and prosecuted (I have no idea if they actually
>> were jailed, but I bet they were as the evidence was pretty damning!)
>
>Prosecution does not equal guilt. The fact that you do not know if they
>were jailed, makes my point. Your information MIGHT help prove the guilt
>of someone, but it does not prove the guilt by itself. I have seem it happen
>hundreds of times and its so obvious why it should be that way - you really
>DON'T know for sure if that person was at the keyboard. You can infer it,
>but thats not good enough to get beyond probably cause with a good lawyer.
Sure it is. When the person purported to be the beneficiary of the action
lives in the house, the phone line goes to that house, the call is
identified as coming from there and the computer's disk has traces on it
proving that it came from that keyboard, basic surveillance proves who was
on the machine at the time.
>> Further, I'm not (and never have) argued making it ILLEGAL to be anonymous.
>> On the contrary. I'm arguing that IF you are going to have "anonymous"
>> postings, then they MUST BE ANONYMOUS, and the system should be designed
>> to discourge abusive uses of that technology!
>
>What if its not possible to prevent all forms of, what you call, abuse? Then
>what?
Then SOME abuse happens.
But designing a system TO BE ABUSED is irresponsible.
>> Allowing people to plaster SOMEONE ELSE's moniker on a posting isn't an act
>> of "anonymous posting." Its an act of constructive fraud and forgery, with
>> you as a willing co-conspirator to the act.
>
>NO ONE OWNS MONIKERS! Its not fraud to have the same name as someone else,
>and if you are too clueless to read the from: line in its entireity that is
>YOUR PROBLEM. I sign my posts so its clear that my words are mine,
>because I *KNOW BETTER* and so should you BTW.
So why not just set FROM to something that nobody can claim? Are you trying
to create an ANONYMOUS posting service or a way to have a CONVERSATION?
The second is INHERENTLY not an anonymous act.
>Your titling at straw men here. Its not like that at all, and you know it.
>Anonymous speech can be abused. Its not possible to prevent all forms of
>abuse. Thats the cost.
It IS possible to block 90+% of it.
>> Do I need to know with 100% certainty? No, I do not.
>
>In a court of law you do, well at least beyond a reasonable doubt. And a good
>lawyer can beat your evidence any day. Like I said before, I've seen it happen
>hundreds of times on both sides of court room.
In a civil suit its a preponderance of the evidence, and you'd lose.
>> What I do know is
>> that you dialed into server port <X> from telephone number <Y> and presented
>> thereupon a set of credentials that were registered to user <Z>. What you
>> do from that point forward is attributed to that tuple of information,
>> and that tuple of information tracks back to a person who signed a legal
>> agreement to do (and not to do) certain things.
>
>Unless I steal that information you (or guess your password, or own the ISP, or
>find a hole in security model, etc), and spoof the caller ID info - or I
>drop a trojan or your box, and have it do evil for things as you. Again, its
>too easy to beat the wrap if you try hard enough with just ISP logs. You
>need more than that to really nail someone that doesn't want to get caught
>and won't confess - or otherwise doesn't leave a nice forensics trail on
>their system (and the clueful ones DON'T). So in the end, you can only
>infer their identity. (Do you have kids? Haven't you ever had them log on
>with daddies ISP account?)
Leave no trail eh? Good luck.
>>>Anyway, cancel wars involve DtR, in case you are not aware, DtR reposts
>>>cancelled posts (see news.admin.net-abuse.usenet). What this ends up
>>>causing is a worse mess than the one you have. It's cleaner to kill
>>>file. Imagine everyone cancelling what they don't want to see.
>
>> DtR does not resurrect anonymous postings. At least it didn't the last time
>> I was in the middle of this nonsense. Things coming from cotse should be
>> per-se exempt from DtR activity, since they are by definition not
>> attributable to a person.
>
>But, they CAN be attributable to an identity with digital signatures, so in
>that case, your point is moot.
The instances I'm referring to here have all lacked digital signatures.
Try again.
>> Maybe I should post the code from your anonymous server, once a day, for a
>> month - along with detailed instructions on how to use it..... :-)
>
>All that would prove is that you're a hypocrite.
No, it would be anonymous speech.
>> Be careful what you support Stephen, it might bite you in your own ass.
>
>You would be wise to take your own medicine there. That tool might be
>used to cancel all your posts too. And then you would only have yourself
>to blame for its consequences.
So?
You presume that I would care if it was.
You proceed from a false assumption.
ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to
In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
> Of course not. I'm not going to run it.
Well thats good to hear.
>>> If you don't take this seriously I will give those who are pissed off about
>>> the abuse the tools to nuke those who abuse all the way to Mars and leave
>>> a thousand points of light on impact.
>>
>>So, doing something wrong, releasing a cancel bot to the public makes your
>>actions right? The ends justifies the means then?
> What's wrong about it?
> Oh, I get it. Free speech only applies when its speech you AGREE with.
> When its not then by God, we have to call it wrong and try to BAN IT!
I didn't call for a ban, I just called your actions morally repugnant.
Just because I agree with your right to say whatever you want does not
mean that I have to agree with the speech or condone its morality.
> Got it.
No, you didn't get it.
>>You're idea is personally morally repugnant to me. Whats wrong with fsking
>>killfiles? And who made you the net.police?
> What part of "I suggest you kill this message" do you find to be contrary to
> the ideal of free speech?
I find nothing wrong with the suggestion, but I also do not see any postive
ethical value in making it easier for people to cancel posts. Do you see
some ethical postive here that I don't?
>>> Your move.
>>
>>No, its yours. You obviously think your actions would NOT be justified
>>by releasing such a tool to the public, or you would have already done
>>it. That fact that you hesitate at all either means you can not do
>>what so say and/or that you know mass cancelations is WRONG.
>>
>>Either way, your threat disgusts me.
> Good. Be good and disgusted.
> Hypocrite.
Wow, now we're down to the root of it, rather than speak to the issues
you resort to insults. As they say, if you can not make your argument,
then start in with the Ad Hominem. BTW, I never advocate that your
speech be banned or abridged. Your really should learn to read better.
- --
Shinn.net Anonymous Remailer Admin
PGP Key 1 ID: 0xD8D5B063 PGP Key 2 ID: 0x3C41F029
Key 1 fingerprint = C069 47E0 DF19 823F 2E34 393F 8A4E EC97
Key 2 fingerprint = A79A C4D7 F859 2F1D 26BE 5B34 9B34 0B29
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQEVAwUBOZOGK8QaFjc8QfApAQFs3wf/ZyH87usY4ffFR290vRlAooW+Nv2MkYBh
QxGNWzfQo7hn1uBYVsaUKJqIGvaVXi33hftcZ+CNQ/6AN2EHraQNBAh5WTlWJtav
8mXJmLPSradvnsVzz53ruPQQvIySi7ADdeKiJgmNDZEzdkRU/L0xpiwwteZQ6WgX
RTholxeVesKuXzqTZHgzFP8Kw5Tdyddskp6iLBssFkZH8PC24FxvBSTwqzkhKZ8U
CSfD7ug23F1TnRknQVyNrdhBHHywG2unEKT5xp85cLkTo65In9bhl36SAcE/Ivf7
GApAOEHelQdie6n9Ib0CvqCuPYmz69hvrqNG4InDu8W5M34MhvRtPg==
=AomN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Karl Denninger
<ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
>
So let's see... who's responsibility is it as to whether they listen to my
SUGGESTION or not?
Why, that might be...... the person who owns the machine!
Ding!
My God, he's beginning to understand.
Karl Denninger
<ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
>
>>>discussion to alt.anon and see how they trash you on it.
>
>> Freedom of speech includes the freedom to ask others not to listen, or to
>> remove things that are written somewhere.
>
>Where did you get this idea from? The freedom to ask others not to listen,
>yes, but not the freedom to PREVENT them from listening, which seems to
>what you are driving at.
On the contrary. I cannot prevent any such thing. I can ask others to
prevent it, and whether they do so is up to them.
> You are free to ask others whatever you want, but
>not to compell them not to listen to someone elses speech.
Correct. That happens to include listening to cancels.
> Nor do you have
>the right to remove things that are written somewhere, unless its on your
>personal property.
I cannot do so.
I can request that someone else, who owns that private property, do so.
They can either do what I requested, tell me to go straight to hell, or
ignore me entirely.
It IS their property.
>You really do have some notions about freedom of speech.
You're a hypocrite if you think freedom of speech only includes speech you
agree with. Perhaps you need to cogitate on the fact that nobody ever
bothers to try to ban speech that isn't offensive.
>>>The process to change the charter of a public newsgroup is known.
>>>Resurrecting the moderated newsgroup would remove the flame war from where
>>>most people would post..
>
>> Incorrect. It will not remove them from here, nor from any of the regional
>> groups.
>
>Sigh... and?
That's the point under debate, which you are intentionally ignoring.
ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to
In alt.privacy.anon-server Wotan <wo...@deathpenguin.com> wrote:
>>A) morally acceptable for protected speech (sorry fella, as much as you don't
>>like flame wars, they're legal)
> TFB. We don't want to see your libelous vendetta against Brian Lang. The
*MY* libelous vendetta again Brian who? You're confusing me with someone else,
I've never libeled any person named Brian Land and I'm not even part of whatever
discussion your are going on about.
Please get your facts straight.
>>B) Some SUp3R S3kRit T3KnEq that only you know of? (wow... you're so 31337 that
>>you can write a cancel bot!) Cancel bots are old hat.
> So what? They still work.
And nuclear bombs work too, thats doesn't make it OK to just use them whenever and
where ever the mood strikes. Your point is irrelevant.
>>c) Not going to get you booted for net.abuse?
> Not likely. Canceling of off-topic posts in regional groups is a
> long-standing tradition. Several regional groups still cancel specific
> posters becuase they only post off-topic.
Canceling exclusively on from: lines, from non-UCE sources *IS* net abuse.
>>You're idea is personally morally repugnant to me. Whats wrong with fsking
>>killfiles? And who made you the net.police?
> Hell, you are personally and morally repugnant. Why don't you try posting
> your commentary about Brian Lang with an easily traceable account?
Again, WTF are you going on about? You are very much confused about who I am.
I am not part of, nor have I ever been part of whatever you are talking about.
Please step to the front of the clue line, they're free today - take as many
you like. You are falsing accusing me of something I have nothing to do with.
Do yourself a favor and stop now before you really start to look like a fool.
- --
Shinn.net Anonymous Remailer Admin
PGP Key 1 ID: 0xD8D5B063 PGP Key 2 ID: 0x3C41F029
Key 1 fingerprint = C069 47E0 DF19 823F 2E34 393F 8A4E EC97
Key 2 fingerprint = A79A C4D7 F859 2F1D 26BE 5B34 9B34 0B29
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQEVAwUBOZOIBMQaFjc8QfApAQHddAgAq7AuZVbvq6eRKk73HGCZf4UJfvMXpcDa
mOOjS9cmjMKUa+SJA7ny1OCg0HJcDDzGqvN5rQ8GQtn2aJbeQw8OMsnsDjnr0taI
QTB4zQ0Hp90y8jMNp9KZamErl3Ab4N9917RA5ez3UgLNFEl0seGh36N8ncaPNbld
ydDdc6R+Y3dr7NmmuFPBQpho1KMKTAHFjrwAjBrdIC278wXM3ekbN96Exp1yU1YB
eq67rXRoEGf8Jr2fzwO9AkXmSYrpWsR54VmOFiPrWSlWCmj2VIhG+zLIA2KVK2kU
hzewjTwjy9/b90rSGBi/bHl6DkdOM5RSp2s3V1fOsgCpBjVNMYxNAg==
=kMKl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Karl Denninger
<ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to> wrote:
>
>> What's wrong about it?
>
>> Oh, I get it. Free speech only applies when its speech you AGREE with.
>> When its not then by God, we have to call it wrong and try to BAN IT!
>
>I didn't call for a ban, I just called your actions morally repugnant.
>Just because I agree with your right to say whatever you want does not
>mean that I have to agree with the speech or condone its morality.
Uh, you just got done calling what I intend to make easy for people
something that was CENSORSHIP and by implication worthy of a ban......
(in a different post, natch, but indeed you did)
>> Got it.
>
>No, you didn't get it.
Oh I did indeed. You're backpeddling here, which is in fact progress.
>>>You're idea is personally morally repugnant to me. Whats wrong with fsking
>>>killfiles? And who made you the net.police?
>
>> What part of "I suggest you kill this message" do you find to be contrary to
>> the ideal of free speech?
>
>I find nothing wrong with the suggestion, but I also do not see any postive
>ethical value in making it easier for people to cancel posts. Do you see
>some ethical postive here that I don't?
Ah, progress!
We're now down to a debate of ethical values. This is progress indeed.
Yes, I do see a positive value for the vast majority of users in the groups
that get innudated with this abuse. The group(s) subject to this will
change from time to time.
It is, in many ways, a matter of detente. The presence of such a tool
in the hands of many may well prevent the abuse in the first place, without
it having to be used (much anyway; I suspect at least one proof that it
exists and works will be necesary.)
Actually, maybe not. An interesting point here is that the most prolific
abuser has suddenly quit. I wonder if he's trying to figure out how the
hell he's going to fight THIS one off.... :-)
Its like Old Russia .vs. the US. We both know we can nuke each other to
Mars, and as a consequence neither of us was likely to unleash our weaponry.
Why? The consequences suck for both sides. In this case abusers cannot
win, since they will get cancelled faster than they can post, particularly
through web-based remailers. Yes, there may be some account casualties
on the "defense" side, but heh, such is the price of war, right?
The end result is that the abuse stops and the weapons can be sheathed.
Good for everyone, I do believe.
Karl Denninger
<ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
>
>> I do understand the legitimate need for anonymous posting services.
>
>I think you understand the need, but not the cost that society can not
>help but incur to ensure anonymity. There is a cost, abuse, that is
>simply non-trivial to solve.
Completely solve? You're right, we can't completely fix the problem.
So what.
Solve in the 90th percentile? Not tough at all.
The last 10% of the problem always requires 90% of the effort. I don't
propose that you solve the last 10% of the problem, only the larger (and
easier) 90%.
>The remailer community has and
>continues to think long and hard about how to make remailers less and less
>suceptible to abuse. The problem is that most of the time the cure is
>worse than the disease.
I disagree. I believe the remailer community acts not out of balance but
out of spite in many cases, and in nearly all cases anonymous posting is not
actually used for those "higher purposes".
When you claim to be doing something for the "higher purpose", but 99% of
the time its used for lower purposes, then something's wrong. You're either
lying about why you're doing it, or you're doing it wrong. That much is
obvious to anyone with an IQ that is better off than lukewarm.
>I would be curious to hear what your proposal is. Again, perhaps you
>might have something constructive to add to the discussion. I certainly
>do not have a monopoly on the truth or on good ideas.
Already posted it and you quoted it here.
>Only if the cure is not worse than the disease. You have to accept the
>fact that not all speech can be stopped (or SHOULD be stopped) given the
>incredibly broad definition of "abuse" when related to speech on the
>internet - and lets call a spade a spade here.
I always call spades what they are. If you know ANYTHING about me at all,
you know this is the case. I've been at this for 15-odd years and was one
of the original guys moving news around on Telebit Trailblazers (and PC
Pursuit before that), back when a week's feed fit on a 40MB hard disk
complete with history file and pathalias database for email replies.
> We ARE talking about
>speech, not action. Its offensive speech that appears to be unacceptable
>to you and in those cases offensive speech is protected speech, no matter
>how irritating it is to you and no matter how much you may think the
>world would be better off without it. The consequences of such actions,
>outlawing or preventing any offensive speech, is not acceptable.
I don't find offensive speech to be unacceptable.
I find *shouting over* other people to be unacceptable, in that it renders
a forum useless. You have a right to speak, but not during a movie where
the patrons are watching the presentation. If you can't behave in a civil
manner, you get asked to leave (or worse).
The problem here is that your systems permit wholesale abuse in that they
can consume significant percentages of the "discussions" going on.
>Why is not legitimate to have a flame war? Because you and I think its
>childish and a waste of bandwidth? Its STILL protected speech and
>obviously its important to the flamers, no matter how absurd and useless
>their digression into Ad Hominem certainly is. Floods, on the other
>hand, are generally DoS attacks and I would agree that something should
>be done about them - and I do my best to prevent them via technical means.
When a group has its central purpose destroyed due to overwhelming
overcrowding and pointless repetition, it is a DoS attack against the users
of that group. It may not be against a MACHINE, but it is against the user
population there.
When you make it possible to do this without the people responsible being
accountable, then *you* are the cause.
In the instant case, ONE of the flamers got his account yanked, and
apparently it was for these very acts of abuse and shouting over others.
But he was posting from a TRACEABLE account.
The OTHER participant in that flamefest still has *HIS* account, because
THE REMAILERS SHIELDED HIM FROM THE REPERCUSSIONS FOR HIS ACTIONS.
There's something very wrong with this. But its easily fixed, without
"outing" the poster and without destroying the CLAIMED "high purpose"
for these anonymous systems.
(If that's why you're really running one)
>Why? Because you say so? Thats not a good enough reason. Are you really
>suggesting that there will NEVER be and is NOT *ANY* reason to speak
>anonymously on those groups?
More than a couple of times a day?
> Can you really say that and *KNOW* that you
>will never be wrong?
Does it matter? There are 30,000 groups to choose from. Concentrating your
effluent in one of them in some way helps your case here? I think not.
>I think you will have to accept the fact that there is some level of
>offensive speech you will will not be able to keep from reading.
Well certainly. But not half of the content of a group, or more, all coming
from these remailers. And that IS exactly what I'm talking about here over
the last few days, and what has prompted me to dust off this old crusty code
that I originally intended for other purposes.
>> 1. If your software was asked to send more than, oh, two postings in
>> one day to any specific newsgroup that it would ban that group from
>> further postings for 24 hours.
>
>Mine already throttles as best it can, however your limit is a bit too low to
>allow for any sort of regular banter on usenet,
Anonymous posting is not for "banter." You yourself said it isn't. In
fact, you defined some very good uses for it, none of which require "banter"
and all, in fact, specifically exclude that.
> you also may be discounting
>the fact that remailers chain messages.
So what?
> Which means the output point does
>not have any way of measuring context to know that the 100 messages it is
>sending to one newsgroup came from 1 person, or 100 persons.
Doesn't matter. Even an input point doesn't know this, since it is trivial
to go through a redirector if you have a web-based submit system, and pretty
easy even if you don't.
The point here is that *your* posting software should throttle posts to a
single group to a very small number per day. Your choice as to whether
you stack or discard when the limit is exceeded (pick your poison.) I'd
frankly discard, assuming that the person sending is *probably* not using
the remailer for one of those "high minded" purposes, but that's me.
>The problem is more complex than I think you give it credit for. To try and
>reduce the obvious case of flooding, my mail2news gateway looks at the content
>of the message to determine if its a duplicate or if its too similiar to
>a previous message before it sends it on - and keeps a hash table of this
>information for months to further reduce UCE, Floods and obvious abuse. So,
>in that context, some of what you ask for is already happening. As far as
>putting an arbitrary limit on the number of posts to a newsgroup, I don't see
>how that would work - since the context of the number of posts to allow is
>not really available to the output remailer, since it doesn't know what "too
>much" is for one newsgroup or one user.
Doesn't matter. Two is enough. More get stacked or tossed. Abusers leave,
because they can't flood a newsgroup and drive off the legitimate users.
Legitimate people who need to get the word out for one of those high-minded
purposes still can do so. If the first attempt fails (disappears) they can
always re-issue the post either tomorrow or to a different group.
Want to get fancier? Fine - no more than 1% of the last 24 hours postings,
numerically, can eminate from your remailer, with a lower limit of one.
This means that in a very busy group (thousands of messages a day) you can
post a dozen or two messages a day through the remailer. In a moderately
slow group (a couple hundred messages a day) you can post two. In a slow
newsgroup? One.
This automatically calibrates itself to the volume already present, works
well across disparate traffic levels, and is equitable. It also pretty much
makes significant abuse in a given group flatly impossible to perform.
>> 2. Prohibit crossposting entirely.
>
>I limit crossposts to 5 newsgroups. Prohibiting it seems excessive to me. You
>crosspost, so why shouldn't an anonymous or pseudo-anonymous person be allowed
>to do the same?
Again, is this remailer for high moral purpose or not?
>> 3. Do not permit people to set the "FROM" header. It serves no purpose
>> in an anonymous environment. Instead set it to a robot on your
>> server that would reply with "the source is intentionally cloaked
>> and no person can lay claim to the content represented in any
>> message with this source address, as they have intentionally and
>> willfully shielded their identity."
>
>My remailer and gateway does this now.
Well, you got one of three.
That's better than Cotse.
Stephen K. Gielda
> You're a hypocrite if you think freedom of speech only includes speech you
> agree with. Perhaps you need to cogitate on the fact that nobody ever
> bothers to try to ban speech that isn't offensive.
>
>
To use your words, you are finally beginning to understand. But you
should word it to be "nobody bothers to try to ban speech they don't view
as offensive". Offensive is subjective.
/steve
--
Stephen K. Gielda
http://www.cotse.com
The Church of the Swimming Elephant
Have you gone to church today?
Stephen K. Gielda
> My clean-news code does, in fact, kill all binary postings. But it
> requires a "channel feed" from INN or the equivalent in Diablo, since
> it has to look at the entire news stream. This also means it pretty much
> has to run on a server, due to the volume requirements, or, today, behind
> something faster than a T1. Totally impractical for this use as a
> consequence. That's why it needs to be modified - to connect over NNTP
> and only grab HEADERS (which is all you need in this case) - turning it
> into a very LOW BANDWIDTH piece of software suitable for running on any
> Linux or FreeBSD net-connected box.)
>
> The only reason its not yet out there is that I'm happy to debate this with
> remailer operators FIRST to see if a reasonable set of accomodations can be
> reached that will stop the abuse but not significant impair the legitimate
> uses of their service.
>
>
Actually that is a very valid way to filter what you want on your news
server. It is also your right to do that. For local filtering per user
look at www.nfilter.org. A good solution would be having group readers
who don't want to see the anon posts run it. One person could maintain
filters and distribute them to new users.
It's also important to note that plenty of software already exists like
that for INN, Diablo, etc. See cleanfeed, NoCem, and more. This is the
valid way to do it. Issuing global cancels to propagate to other systems
isn't, but even so, lots of software to do that already exists, no need
to reinvent the wheel. Get Hipcrime's NewsAgent, or poke your head into
alt.hackers.malicious and see what they are using. Many cancel-bots
already exist and run daily.
Your best bet is localized. nfilter, etc. Cancels just cause a loop
when resurrector bots start and everything is a mess. Filters work
better than cancels.
Stephen K. Gielda
> The end result is that the abuse stops and the weapons can be sheathed.
>
>
could save yourself the time and hang in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet and
see what happens in groups that are now cancelling just like this. They
get worse, not better, all of them.
Stephen K. Gielda
> The problem here is that your systems permit wholesale abuse in that they
> can consume significant percentages of the "discussions" going on.
>
>
through an anon remailer would be considered a flood and banned. In
order for anonymous postings to take up the conversation on a newsgroup
someone must reply.
Stephen K. Gielda
> Leave no trail eh? Good luck.
>
>
cracking through remailers?
Kenneth Pangborn
news:RGLk5.58$J....@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> In alt.privacy.anon-server Wotan <wo...@deathpenguin.com> wrote:
>
> >>A) morally acceptable for protected speech (sorry fella, as much as you
don't like flame wars, they're legal)
> And nuclear bombs work too, thats doesn't make it OK to just use them
whenever and where ever the mood strikes. Your point is irrelevant.
Well in ***YOUR*** would it does! Since you are INCAPABLE of making a
distinction between am Iranian student trying to gain FREE information, and
one of YOUR USERS trying to incite the RAPE and brutalization of children,
it seems that by YOUR standards, USING the nuclear bombs WOULD be justified.
Or are morals only applied to OTHER people? Oh I see now.
I had long thought that remailers HAD a place that was necessary. YOUR
inability to distinguish unpopular ideas from the use of YOUR SYSTEM to
incite the RAPE and MURDER of children and spouses of the "MARKS" of your
users is what will eventually lead to the loss of that freedom. You make the
PRICE of free speech WAY to high by your reckless disregard for it yourself.
Your CONTEMPT for free speech by endangering it by not having a SHRED of
responsibility with how YOU use it.
AT ANY time and I do mean ANY time, you could simply deny access to the
offenders. You could regulate yourself. You ARROGANTLY REFUSE TO DO SO! And
by doing so you brand yourself in public. You have those acts of abuse
attach to you.
And NO amount of WHINING or tap dancing on your part will change the
perception of you and shinn.net. (as well as the other remailer operators
who refuse to prevent harassment.)
Kenneth Pangborn
news:szLk5.57$J....@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
> > Of course not. I'm not going to run it.
> Well thats good to hear.
> >>> If you don't take this seriously I will give those who are pissed off
about the abuse the tools to nuke those who abuse all the way to Mars and
leave a thousand points of light on impact.
>
> >>So, doing something wrong, releasing a cancel bot to the public makes
your actions right? The ends justifies the means then?
Excuse me Mr. Pot, we've HAD this discussion in the past and *YOU* sir
presented ME with the logic that because YOUIR service was allowing a
student in Iran get FREE information, that this somehow makes the INVITATION
to RAPE AND MURDER the wife and child of one of your other users' "MARKS" a
thing that must be protected. YOU have argued that there is "ASBOLUTELY NO
DIFFERENCE" between the Itanian Student questioning a repressive government,
and one of your WHACKO users BEGGING for the rape of one of his debate
opponent's children. YOUR POSITION as you REFUSED any help to the man's
victims. (And there were DOZENS who BEGGED you for help.) All they got were
smartassed retorts on "freedom of speech."
> > What's wrong about it?
> > Oh, I get it. Free speech only applies when its speech you AGREE with.
When its not then by God, we have to call it wrong and try to BAN IT!
> I didn't call for a ban, I just called your actions morally repugnant.
Just because I agree with your right to say whatever you want does not mean
that I have to agree with the speech or condone its morality.
"Morality?" A word coming from YOUR mouth sir? I know morality, I try to
be moral, YOU are NO MORALIST SIR. ou have ABSOLUTELY NO room to toss that
word at others. NONE! Moore is sick. YOU are allegedly "normal." How DARE
you suggest that somebody else's actions might not be "moral" when YOUR
SERVICE with YOUR APPROVAL is used to attempt to incite the TAPE and MURDER
of children? And you KNOW it is being used that way! And you defend it as
"FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!" You ARGUE to DEFEND it saying we "HAVE TO" allow THAT
speech in order to get the truth into Iran, North Korea and China. (Of
course to anyone with an IQ over room temperatue, your argument is pure BS)
> > Got it.
> No, you didn't get it.
No, he got it. YOU lack the clue here!
> >>You're idea is personally morally repugnant to me. Whats wrong with
fsking killfiles? And who made you the net.police?
> > What part of "I suggest you kill this message" do you find to be
contrary to the ideal of free speech?
> I find nothing wrong with the suggestion, but I also do not see any
postive thical value in making it easier for people to cancel posts. Do you
see some ethical postive here that I don't?
I don't know about HIM, but *I* do. Just ONE child spared a brutal RAPE
is excuse enough for me! JUST ONE. And the Iranian boy can find some OTHER
way to get the truth. Like maybe turning on the BBC. You GLORIFY yourself
too richly sir! SHINN.NET's importance in the scheme of the universe is not
nearly as grandiose as YOU seem to see it. I don't recall reading that
SHINN.NET was annointed by Jesus in the Gospel by Mark, did I miss the verse
where YOU think it was?
> >>> Your move.
> >>No, its yours. You obviously think your actions would NOT be justified
y releasing such a tool to the public, or you would have already done it.
That fact that you hesitate at all either means you can not do >what so say
and/or that you know mass cancelations is WRONG.
> >>Either way, your threat disgusts me.
> > Good. Be good and disgusted.
> > Hypocrite.
> Wow, now we're down to the root of it, rather than speak to the issues you
resort to insults. As they say, if you can not make your argument, then
start in with the Ad Hominem. BTW, I never advocate that your speech be
banned or abridged. Your really should learn to read better.
Oh how WHITE of you!
Kenneth Pangborn
news:MPG.13fd74e93...@news.supernews.com...
> > The end result is that the abuse stops and the weapons can be sheathed.
> I think you need to begin cancelling so you can test this theory. Or you
could save yourself the time and hang in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet and
see what happens in groups that are now cancelling just like this. They
get worse, not better, all of them.
Not true. They have applied the cancelbot in Milwaukee General and it is
now a pretty decent place again with no anonymous posts.
And it would work here too.
Kenneth Pangborn
news:s3Kk5.23$J....@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
> >>Uh... hello!? Thats what anonymity is ALL ABOUT. Its a
constitutionally protected right to not be required to identify yourself as
the author of something. Your speaking in tautologies and you're really
missing the >point. Of course anonymity is about denying authorship!
In this case authorship of harassment! Denying authorchip of posts to
sex deviant newsgroups trying to INCITE the rape and muder of the wives and
children of YOUR USER'S debate opponents. Yeah, if I were doing that, *I*
would want to deny it too! But then if *I* were the operator of a remailer,
*I* wouldn't come out in public to DEFEND that and make a CLOWN of myself
before the entire world!
> > Why not tag ALL the posts "anon...@whereever.xxx" and PROHIBIT
changing the FROM line then?
> I don't allow anyone to change the from for posts from my remailer.
SURE YOU DO! Moore posted at least a dozen FORGERIES from YOUR system to
my screen name in the past 2 days.
> > Why, because you don't want to REALLY have anonymous posts, right?
> Not at all. I think you are lumping *all* remailers into the same
category. I do not allow users to change the e-mail part of the from line
so that it is obvious the message is coming from my remailer, and further
(As will all remailers) there is a clear disclaimer in the header that the
message senders identity is not known to the MTA - and therefore that you
should not rely on that information to identify the sender (nor should you
ever rely on that information alone to identify the sender of a message, as
you know from lines are trivial to forge and with so many open relays these
days it pretty easy to do a complete forgery that might even fool a clueful
person).
Uh, like yourself? That would be EASY to prevent with software. All of
it. And if you can't find people to write the hosting software to prevent
those abuses, I could easily point you to some unemployed software people in
California who could whip that out for you in a week.
> >>You want to force the author of a text to be identified, and what you
seem to be missing is that its a human right NOT to be forced to identify
yourself when speaking.
So let me understand your "LOGIC" here and see if I get it. There is a
GOD GIVEN HUMAN RIGHT not to have to identify yourself when you try to
INCITE the RAPE AND MURDER of people's children that is VASTLY more
important that the RIGHT of that child NOT to be brutalized? Maybe we SHOULD
invade the Netherlands!
> No I'm not. You've jumped to a totally unfounded conclusion. I do not
allow y users to forge from: lines. You would do well to know the facts
*before* you make hypostatic leaps.
HOW MANY EXAMPLES would you like from MY archives and a certain law
enforcement agency of FORGED from-lines from YOUR system? Ones with RACIST
and ant-semetic rants???????????
Ones calling for the "EXTERMINATION OF ALL JEWS?" From YOUR SYSTEM!!
> That is NOT asking people not to listen, that is CENSORSHIP. You do not
have the *RIGHT* to CENSOR someone elses words. Do you not understand that?
Where do you get off thinking that you have the moral right to decide what
*OTHER* people should read?
The same place where we get the idea that is is not legal to go into a
crowded theater and shout "FIRE!!!!!!" I am sorry that YOU cannot make the
distinction between that IRANIAN STUDENT trying to gain FREE information and
YOUR USERS trying to incite the RAPE AND MURDER of children! I am tryuly
SORRY that you have neither the intellectual or moral ability to make the
distinction.
>> Do you not see the moral bankruptcy in this part of your argument?
> You sound like a reasonable person (otherwise I wouldn't bother), but I
really fail to see where you arrived at the conclusion that you are someone
how morally justified in canceling posts. If you want a moderated
newsgroup, you know what to do - and that does not include canceling posts
ad hoc that you do not think other people should read.
You are WRONG sir! Society always has the right to police itself!
It is called the rule of law. It is also called majority rule.
> >>The cost of living without anonymity is far FAR too high.
WRONG! YOU have helped make it CHEAP and you lack the intellect to
understand that., YOU are the one who treats it all so trivially.
> > You CAN prevent it from being abused, or at least lessen the risk.
> Yes, and I have taken what I consider to be reasonable measures to
prevent abuse and keep an open mind about how I might improve the
model.
First - you REALLY prevent forgeries from being sent from your system.
Whatever you THINK you have done has not worked. Secondly you make a
distinction between free speech and assault.
> > I provided several examples of how.
> My news server appears to expired out that message, so if you would not
mind please repeat those examples and I will sincerely consider them.
Perhaps you might have some useful suggestions that I had not thought of.
However, mass cancelations are not my idea of an example worthy of
endorsing and your even suggesting it make me less inclined to listen to
anything you have to say - but I will do my best to hear you out (still,
your suggestion definitely puts you in the extremist camp).
ONE thing you could do is block people who ABUSE your system, may I note
that OTHER remailers HAVE done so????????????
Which YOU REFUSE TO DO! At least FOUR have banned the miscreant who abuses
the process. YOU stand out as the main one who does NOT!
> > Your refusal to do so speaks volumes.
> Nonsense. I do extraordinary things to prevent abuse. From flood
control, to duplicate detection, inbound IP based throttling, known spam
source filtering, RBL, RSS and ORBS subscriptions and so on. Your
solution, mass cancelations is horrid and immoral IMO - and would do more
harm than good (WAY more harm). You would destroy all anonymous speech thru
your mass canceling jihad for what? So you can chill the speech of ONE
person? Doesn't that strike you
as a bit EXTREME?!
Nope. No more "EXTREME" than banning somebody from yelling "FIRE" in a
theater, or walking into somebody's home and yelling racial epithets at
them. No more than making it a crime to incite a riot.
> That speaks volumes about you as some sort of lunatic. Can't you see
that? If you sincerely want remailer operators to listen, you could start
by losing the rhetoric.
It is quite clear to most people that SOME remailer operators are
co-conspirators with some of the net punks. That some remailer operators see
the forgeries, spoofs, and calls for the rape of children as actually
"funny!" Some folks see you as not fully grow'd men. As bad AS the David
Moores. Responsible adults would never tolerate such behavior in their
business. The fact that you are TRYING to wage a PR war suggests you are
finally getting sensitive to the growing sentiment to eliminate services
such as yours. The simple answer, of course, is to STOP the abuse from your
system. All your confounding rhetoric doesn't serve to answer the problem.
MOST of the people you are trying to BS with claims that "it can't be
helped" KNOW better, many have programming skills.
My problem with you has always been one of a personality conflict. I
just can't abide people who pee all over my shoes, and then when I complain,
try to belittle ME, telling me that I am crazy, that it is really raining
out! Constant insulting the intelligence of those who came to you BEGGING
for help. Now all you can do is call us "extremists." And you don't
understand the contempt people feel for you. I don't know if you are married
or have children. TRY to consider how YOU would feel if YOU could never
allow your daughter to be alone because some ANONYMOUS PERVERT has posted
all her info on the net trying to INCITE her RAPE and MURDER, and then some
CLOW tries to give you a LONG LONG LONG lecture of "FREEDOM OF SPEECH and
the CRITICAL NEED for ANONYMITY" that is VASTLY more important than her
LIFE! Oh PLEASE make the same argument in public that you made to me in
EMAIL..... And you WONDER why I hold you in contempt sir? I hold freedom of
speech as VERY precious which is why I find YOU dangerous. YOU threaten to
end it!
Kenneth Pangborn
news:LHKk5.36$J....@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
> What if its not possible to prevent all forms of, what you call, abuse?
Then what?
It is possible to prevent THIS form of abuse, however.
> > Allowing people to plaster SOMEONE ELSE's moniker on a posting isn't an
act of "anonymous posting." Its an act of constructive fraud and forgery,
with you as a willing co-conspirator to the act.
> NO ONE OWNS MONIKERS! Its not fraud to have the same name as someone
else, and if you are too clueless to read the from: line in its entireity
that is YOUR PROBLEM. I sign my posts so its clear that my words are mine,
because I *KNOW BETTER* and so should you BTW.
Perhaps in YOUR country people don't own there names. In America we DO!
> Your titling at straw men here. Its not like that at all, and you know
it.
Anonymous speech can be abused. Its not possible to prevent all forms of
abuse. Thats the cost.
And, sir, a SIGNIFICANT NUMBER of people are telling you that the cost
is "TOO HIGH!" And that we REFUSE TO PAY IT any longer!
I suggest you and the few other rogue services get that message or the law
WILL give it to you. Police yourself or government WILL!
Kenneth Pangborn
> Leave no trail eh? Good luck.
> How come the FBI can't catch the people cracking their systems? Are they
cracking through remailers?
Oh but the FBI has indeed nailed a bunch of them. Maybe you have missed
recent "perp walks" with the 15 year old smartass in Canada?
Or the guy they traced to the Phillipines. You'd like to THINK that they
can't get caught. You know Steve, prisons in every country are FULL of
smartasses who KNEW the law was WAY too stupid to ever catch them!
In the case at hand, the cops already have enough documented to nail the
guy. Just waiting for a prosecutor to say "ENOUGH!"
Dave Korn
[ in reply to Stephen K. Gielda]
>Not relavent Stephen.
>
>Since these articles that eminate from cotse (like 300 said posts in a
>couple of days) cannot be traced to a person, and in fact I could post
>from cotse with that same FROM line and it would be impossible to verify,
>it is therefore impossible for anyone to verify if a CANCEL for said
>articles came from the original author or not.
Actually it's very easy to verify:-
Step 1: See post that has arrived through cotse. See that it has an
email From: address that may or may not be real, and may or may
not belong to the person.
Step 2: Send mail to that address, referencing the article, and asking
if the recipient of the email was indeed the author of the article.
Step 3: Await reply.
If you get back a reply saying "Yes, indeed that was me" then you
have successfully verified that the email address is indeed real, and
that it belongs to either the author of the article, or somebody who
answers "yes" to any question they are asked.
OTOH If *you* were to post through cotse with the same 'From'
line as someone else, the email in Step 2. would be sent to *them*,
not you, and so they would probably reply "No, that was not me".
Easy.
hth,
DaveK
--
"Reality is whatever doesn't go away after you stop believing in it."
-- Philip K. Dick
Wilbur Streett
>Oh, by the way, you're still supporting a documented liar, with the
>documentation in your own hands.
>
>Why is that Wilbur?
The only documented liar that I have seen in this flame war has been Ken
Pangborn.
There have been numerous posts through various anonymous remailers
attempting to claim to be David Moore, and I'm not particularly interested
in trying to figure out the party, unless the posts can be verified.
Wilbur
--------------------------------------------
Putting A Human Face On Technology ;-)
--------------------------------------------
Literally! http://www.TheFaceOf.com
ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to
In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
>>> Why not tag ALL the posts "anon...@whereever.xxx" and PROHIBIT changing
>>> the FROM line then?
>>
>>I don't allow anyone to change the from for posts from my remailer.
> Then your remailer is not part of the problme being experienced HERE.
Glad to hear it.
> This will permit *precisely targeted* cancels to stop abuse in *specific*
> groups issued by SPECIFIC remailers. It will NOT kill all remailers or
> even a specific remailer in ALL groups.
Unless someone runs it against all groups, which someone will. I suppose its
a good thing alot of news servers no longer honor third party cancels.
> The only reason its not yet out there is that I'm happy to debate this with
> remailer operators FIRST to see if a reasonable set of accomodations can be
> reached that will stop the abuse but not significant impair the legitimate
> uses of their service.
Again, your proposal is?
>>I do not allow users to change the e-mail part of the from line so that it
>>is obvious the message is coming from my remailer, and further (As will all
>>remailers) there is a clear disclaimer in the header that the message
>>senders identity is not known to the MTA - and therefore that you should not
>>rely on that information to identify the sender (nor should you ever rely
>>on that information alone to identify the sender of a message, as you know
>>from lines are trivial to forge and with so many open relays these days
>>it pretty easy to do a complete forgery that might even fool a clueful person).
> That's true. But that doesn't stop people from claiming they "authored"
> something due to the FROM line, and some remailers allow you to set it.
> If yours does not then you're probably "distasteful" to the particular
> imbecile who is abusing them in this group.
Perhaps.
>>> Again, you miss the point.
>>
>>> You may post "anonymously".
>>
>>> I may ask people not to listen, by sending cancels.
>>
>>That is NOT asking people not to listen, that is CENSORSHIP.
> No, it is free speech. I am speaking (to the computers of the net) just as
> you are.
You're splitting hairs and dodging the issue. A cancel is an ACTION its not
speech in even the perceptive sense of this debate, its an ACTION to delete a
piece of speech - and you full well know this. Context IS everything in this
case.
> I am asking them to remove what you said. They may or may not
> comply with my request, at the WHIM OF THE OWNER OF THAT MACHINE.
True, but that does not give you the *right* to do it, any more so than I have
a right to ask your system to do things because I am assuming that because it
*can* do it, that you want me to be able to do it. Should I be allowed to do
whatever I want to or with your system if your system allows me to do it?
>> You do not have
>>the *RIGHT* to CENSOR someone elses words.
> I most certainly do have the RIGHT to request that someone not listen to
> you.
Yes, you can request that, but you can not take actions to directly abridge
my rights to free speech.
> The only person with the RIGHT to make that decision is the OWNER OF
> THE NEWS MACHINE. Not you, not me, not someone else.
True, but it does not follow that just because a system CAN do something
that it acceptable to do that thing with that system. Intent is everything,
and its clear your intent, when issuing a cancel, is to abridge someones
right to free speech. Just because you can do it, does not make it OK nor
does it mean that the news server operator wants you to do it (afterall
people DO misconfigure systems all the time and software DOES have bugs).
> All *I* can do, just as all *YOU* can do, is issue REQUESTS to machines that
> we do not own. We can do nothing more.
Well, we can do more, but most of that would be either illegal or unethical -
or both. ;-)
> You, like I, like the rest of us out here, can issue only SUGGESTIONS.
> Those SUGGESTIONS may be honored or ignored, at the whim of the OWNER of
> those machines.
Point taken, so the moral of the story is, no news server with a CLUE
should ever accept third party cancels. Got it. Thanks for the update.
> I had this debate a THOUSAND times when I ran an ISP. The bottom line was
> always the same - my computer, my rules. If you don't like it then fuck
> off. And yes, that was PRECISELY how I expressed that position.
I'm sure your customers loved you.
> If I had a nickel for every time some asshole tried to tell me that I *HAD*
> to take this group or that group, or that I was CENSORING their "right" to
> get kiddie porn, stolen software or scans from men's magazines (this was
> before MP3s became all the rage, natch) I'd be so rich I could buy the
> entire country of Cuba!
Thats not terribly rich BTW.
> MY COMPUTER, MY CHOICE.
I agree, provided that you are not clearly attacking my system. There is a
gray area here that you are dismissing somewhat our of hand, indeed it is
true that a cancel is a request - but, intent is everything with the law.
Your actions may technically be acceptable via the RFC, but your intentions
and actions may add up to a breech of the law. Although, I personally have
little patience for such attempts to regulate behavior when its clear that
the protocol is flawed and can not be trusted - as with cancel requests.
> Beyond the boundaries of MY COMPUTER, all I can do is issue SUGGESTIONS.
Again, you can do more than just issue SUGGESTIONS.
>>> I provided several examples of how.
>>
>>My news server appears to expired out that message, so if you would not
>>mind please repeat those examples and I will sincerely consider them.
> Certainly:
> The goals here are to:
> 1. Cut abusive use of remailers down to a level where it is lost
> in the noise level from legitimate use.
> 2. NOT have to track individual users of those remailers (which
> voids the concept of anonymous use in the first place) through
> any database.
> If you're willing to violate #2, then its easy, but since I assume you're
> not (and neither are the others who run these things) we end up somewhat
> limited in what we can do.
> Ok, let's take a good look at what CAN be done:
> 1. Create a set of alt.* groups SPECIFICALLY for anonymous postings.
> Generic names for them should be sufficient - "alt.whistle-blower.us",
> etc. A couple hundred of these should be able to cover the gamut
> fairly well.
I see a few problems with this:
1) I don't think it would reduce abuse. Remailers are not the only way to
post anonymously.
2) It defeats the purpose of anonymity in relgating it to the back waters
of the net and denying persons their right to post anonymously, when and
where they choose. Your proposal is throwing out all anonymous speech
from all newsgroups except some variation of the redlight district
for anonymous speech. Thats presuming, erroniously I might add, that all
anonymous speech is bad, which is simply not true. Most anonymous speech,
given the volumeof traffic that goes thru my remailer alone, is not
"abusive" in that I only recieve, on average, one complaint a week about
content that has gone thru my remailer. And here are the stats to
put the issue in perspective (and keep in mind, this is the traffic from
just one remailer):
Number of messages in the past 24 hours:
15h: Mix: 111 PGP: 30 [Pool size: 23]
16h: Mix: 85 PGP: 26 [Pool size: 21]
17h: Mix: 123 PGP: 32 [Pool size: 23]
18h: Mix: 114 PGP: 56 [Pool size: 26]
19h: Mix: 101 PGP: 38 [Pool size: 24]
20h: Mix: 137 PGP: 31 [Pool size: 21]
21h: Mix: 111 PGP: 35 [Pool size: 22]
22h: Mix: 128 PGP: 31 [Pool size: 22]
23h: Mix: 202 PGP: 69 [Pool size: 27]
0h: Mix:1470 PGP: 359 [Pool size: 27]
1h: Mix: 134 PGP: 39 [Pool size: 25]
2h: Mix: 126 PGP: 27 [Pool size: 24]
3h: Mix: 141 PGP: 25 [Pool size: 23]
4h: Mix: 114 PGP: 26 [Pool size: 21]
5h: Mix: 79 PGP: 22 [Pool size: 20]
6h: Mix: 113 PGP: 17 [Pool size: 20]
7h: Mix: 132 PGP: 20 [Pool size: 21]
8h: Mix: 91 PGP: 24 [Pool size: 23]
9h: Mix: 180 PGP: 52 [Pool size: 39]
10h: Mix: 94 PGP: 24 [Pool size: 22]
11h: Mix: 169 PGP: 19 [Pool size: 22]
12h: Mix: 130 PGP: 35 [Pool size: 23]
13h: Mix: 92 PGP: 26 [Pool size: 22]
14h: Mix: 19 PGP: 2 [Pool size: 21]
Number of messages per day:
24 May: Mix:2597 PGP: 845
25 May: Mix:2562 PGP: 729
26 May: Mix:2481 PGP: 614
27 May: Mix:2166 PGP: 638
28 May: Mix:1741 PGP: 512
29 May: Mix:1937 PGP: 580
30 May: Mix:1968 PGP: 508
31 May: Mix:2291 PGP: 556
01 Jun: Mix:2779 PGP: 718
02 Jun: Mix:2464 PGP: 454
03 Jun: Mix:2791 PGP: 663
04 Jun: Mix:3019 PGP: 754
05 Jun: Mix:3168 PGP: 627
06 Jun: Mix:3243 PGP: 591
07 Jun: Mix:4201 PGP: 665
08 Jun: Mix:2920 PGP: 798
09 Jun: Mix:2557 PGP: 590
10 Jun: Mix:2496 PGP: 543
11 Jun: Mix:2539 PGP: 624
12 Jun: Mix:2753 PGP: 539
13 Jun: Mix:3702 PGP: 534
14 Jun: Mix:2410 PGP: 663
15 Jun: Mix:2385 PGP: 575
16 Jun: Mix:2450 PGP: 514
17 Jun: Mix:2022 PGP: 833
18 Jun: Mix:1761 PGP: 641
19 Jun: Mix:1945 PGP: 497
20 Jun: Mix:2106 PGP: 623
21 Jun: Mix:2580 PGP: 732
22 Jun: Mix:2082 PGP: 635
23 Jun: Mix:3236 PGP: 736
24 Jun: Mix:2831 PGP: 721
25 Jun: Mix:2364 PGP: 578
26 Jun: Mix:1929 PGP: 733
27 Jun: Mix:2967 PGP: 812
28 Jun: Mix:2430 PGP: 728
29 Jun: Mix:2832 PGP: 957
30 Jun: Mix:2119 PGP: 678
01 Jul: Mix:2218 PGP: 1305
02 Jul: Mix:2397 PGP: 1416
03 Jul: Mix:2283 PGP: 615
04 Jul: Mix:2558 PGP: 822
05 Jul: Mix:2987 PGP: 1067
06 Jul: Mix:2257 PGP: 781
07 Jul: Mix:1974 PGP: 800
08 Jul: Mix:2636 PGP: 794
09 Jul: Mix:2496 PGP: 862
10 Jul: Mix:3178 PGP: 872
11 Jul: Mix:2957 PGP: 823
12 Jul: Mix:2835 PGP: 1058
13 Jul: Mix:2992 PGP: 874
14 Jul: Mix:2610 PGP: 910
15 Jul: Mix:2249 PGP: 908
16 Jul: Mix:1715 PGP: 772
17 Jul: Mix:2272 PGP: 815
18 Jul: Mix:2778 PGP: 887
19 Jul: Mix:2293 PGP: 842
20 Jul: Mix:2819 PGP: 933
21 Jul: Mix:2505 PGP: 852
22 Jul: Mix:2510 PGP: 851
23 Jul: Mix:2063 PGP: 645
24 Jul: Mix:2233 PGP: 673
25 Jul: Mix:2071 PGP: 602
26 Jul: Mix:2535 PGP: 859
27 Jul: Mix:2157 PGP: 627
28 Jul: Mix:2515 PGP: 650
29 Jul: Mix:2039 PGP: 613
30 Jul: Mix:2088 PGP: 699
31 Jul: Mix:1741 PGP: 620
01 Aug: Mix:2201 PGP: 699
02 Aug: Mix:2278 PGP: 668
03 Aug: Mix:2116 PGP: 629
04 Aug: Mix:2596 PGP: 702
05 Aug: Mix:2471 PGP: 1004
06 Aug: Mix:2909 PGP: 935
07 Aug: Mix:2347 PGP: 678
08 Aug: Mix:2649 PGP: 654
09 Aug: Mix:2838 PGP: 612
10 Aug: Mix:2618 PGP: 742
So, if I'm getting, on average, less than one complaint a week about
my remailer, then it stands to reason that the vast VAST majority
of the content going thru my remailer is not "abusive". So, your
proposal about essentially banning all anonymous content to one
heirarchy of alt. groups seems excessive and unnecessary to say to
the least.
> 2. Posting to those SPECIFIC groups is unbridled and unthrottled.
> If you want to send 200 messages a day, go right ahead. Now there
> is ALWAYS a place you can post "anonymously" for legitimate purpose.
> Or not, for that matter. Sane people will probably stay out.
Your last sentence really helps support my point. Your proposal would make
it impossible to read those newsgroups. Why on earth would I want to NOT
throttle? I have resources I want to protect too! :-)
> 3. STRIP all URLs and things that APPEAR to be email addresses from
> "anonymously" posted material. Yes, this is imperfect since its a
> robot, but this prevents someone from posting "anonymously" but
> either pretending to be someone else (real common) or using it
> to spam for some service or other "reference".
I already strip out all user generated headers, so forging someone identity
thru my remailer or my mail2news gateway is not possible. As far as stripping
out URLs, its tempting to think that would stop the spammers, but looking
at my mail2news gateway logs, the dup detetection, BI index, throttling and
other anti-UCE measures so a fine job of filtering them out now. All URL
filtering would accomplish at this point is make it impossible for people to
post legitimate URLs. Content based filtering, as I'm sure you know, is a
notoriously difficult and error prone method. I have serious concerns about
the purely negative effect of just stripping out URLs ad hoc.
> This leaves
> straight textual messages intact. If you want to get fancy
> pattern-match for phone numbers and other personally identifying
> things that have easily-recognized formats (like SSNs) and rip
> them out too.
Hmmm... again, I'm leary of content based filtering. Look at the commerical
content filtering packages like web nanny and others (I'm not singling any
of them out, this applies to ALL of them) they are notoriously wrong and
its been suggested that the companies are engaging in political speech
filtering and otherwise have resorted to using their platform as some form
of personal platform for forwarding their agenda (even filtering out URLs
to sites that are critical of their products, or even their competitors
sites). The point is that content based filtering is a slippery slope, and
when you really start down this path I don't see how its not a forgone
conclusion that it will become corupted quickly. Additionally, its too
easy to filter out content that has a legitimate purpose. Context is
important with speech too. I wish it were as easy as you suggest to
keep the "bad speech" out, but its not. If it were, you would see it in
widespread use.
> 4. DO NOT permit setting the FROM line or inserting any custom
> headers into what you post.
I already do this, as do alot of other remailers. However, its absurd to
rely on from lines to identify anyone and anyone that does is a fool and
I can not be sympathetic to them. Its sad that people STILL think from:
lines prove something. They do not. Use digital signatures ALL THE TIME.
> SUBJECT (filtered as (3) above)
> goes through untouched, but the rest is stripped out and replaced
> with a generic that, if replied to, gives you a robotic reply
> specifying the particulars of how the remailer works AND THAT THE
> SENDER HAS DISCLAIMED AUTHORSHIP BY USING IT.
The author does not disclaim authorship just because they post thru an
anonymous remailer. An author can sign a post with PGP (or S/MIME, or
gpg) using a pseudonym, and should they need to in the future, they
can always reveal their identity to the word (signing that message of
course) or continue on with the pseudonym and digitial signatures and
prove the validity of messages as they see fit. The bottom line is that
you have an erronious misconception that just because a message goes thru
the remailer network that the author does not want to claim authorship
under some nym. That is simply not true, so you would do well to stop
beating this drum.
Moving on, all remailers with replyable addresses (like anmetet@mixmaster.
shinn.net <- look a legitimate use of an e-mail address in a message!)
auto-reply with a message explaining that the message they replied to is
an anonymous message, what a remailer is and so on. I'm not sure why don't
already know this. Remailers have been doing this for years and years.
> 5. Make known those conditions - that by using it you are DISCLAIMING
> authorship.
No. Again, non-sequitor. Just because you use a remailer, does not mean
you want to disclaim authorship nor does it mean, or is it appropriate, to
say so. Not all remailer users disclaim authorship.
> This prevents anyone from trying to argue that they
> "sent" such a posting later. How?
Again: PGP, GPG or S/MIME. This post I am typing RIGHT NOW is a perfect
example of a post that I can prove was signed by my PGP key, and you can
prove as well. You do not need to know my real identity to know this. Is
this clear or do I need to explain further? (I'm not trying to be snide,
I'm just concerned that you really seem to not be picking this important
point up. Its critical in this discussion because you seem to a misunderstanding
about remailers that is fundamentally flawed)
> If you have a web interface
> its easy. If not, the headers of the message should include
> the very specific disclaimer itself, along with a footer as is
> commonly done now.
The headers already include and have ALWAYS included disclaimers for ALL the
remailers. As far as a footer goes, I have tried them, it doesn't make any
difference and it just upsets the legitimate users. Header disclaimers are
there for everyone to read, its not my fault if some users don't avail
themselves of it and just accept from: lines as someone how trusted. They
are not trusted, and you know as well as I do that its TRIVIAL for anyone to
forge a from: line. Users need to learn to stop trusting from: lines once
and for all, and codling them is not going to help IMO. Maybe this will
cause more people to stop trusting from: lines (one can hope).
I agree with the use of disclaimers, just not the need to plaster them all
over the body of the message.
> 6. Finally, THROTTLE anonymous postings to a single group to a small
> number PER DAY (say, 2 or 3), and PROHIBIT crossposting entirely.
As I have said before, its not that easy. If I were to do this, you, were
you to use a remailer (and ALOT of decent people do) would not be able to
respond to this message for probably a week given the volume of posts you
made - and none of them were worthy of being throttled away. So again, your
idea is something I already do via other means, but its far more difficult
to throttle than you give it credit for. What if its a high traffic group?
Prohibiting crossposting all together doesn't work. Been there, done that.
> Since there are 30,000+ newsgroups, this really doesn't prevent much
> - other than a CONCENTRATED use of a remailer in one place - which
> is, incidentally, the hallmark of those who abuse them!
Its also the hallmark of those that USE them, although a significant percentage
of remailer users also crosspost for legitimate purposes. My compromise on
crossposting is to limit it to 5 groups.
> The above will make anonymous abuse disappear into the noise, but not
> in any way significantly impact its use for legitimate purposes.
As I have outlined above, some of the things you suggest are already in
place, some of it will not work to prevent abuse and some of it WILL have
SIGNIFICANT impact on legitimate use. Again, I'm not condoning abuse
or defending it, I'm looking at the consequences of what you have outlined
above as it related to the vast majority of posts that have legitimate
purposes. I appreciate the comments, and if you look at my reply I think
you will agree that what can be done about abuse, has been done.
>>You would destroy all anonymous speech thru your mass canceling jihad for
>>what? So you can chill the speech of ONE person? Doesn't that strike you
>>as a bit EXTREME?!
> I made no proposal to destroy ALL anonymous speech.
Just relgate it to the back waters of the net, and throttle it down to 2-3
posts a day.
> My proposal is to destroy "anonymous" speech that is:
> 1. Sent to a specific set of groups, in this case those dealing
> with divorce, dad's rights and certain regional group sets
> that have been the "spill over" for these flame wars, all
> conducted largely by abusers using anonymous remailers.
Again, whats wrong with killfiles?
> AND
> 2. Is sourced from one or more remailers that permit abusive
> tactics to be employed - specifically, large numbers of postings
> in a day to a single group or set of groups, cross-posted articles,
> and those that permit tampering with headers (with cotse being one
> of these sources.)
cotse does not allow from: line forging if I remember correctly.
> IP-based inbound limiting, by the way, is worthless.
Nonsense. In my case it catches thousands of abusive messages a day. You
forget that I run one of three mail2news gateways, so I *AM* the final
funnel point in the model, and the throttling there is extremely valuable
and necessary. Yes, its always possible for someone to rotate thru IPs,
but that does not make it unnecessary to throttline based on single source
addresses where most of the ankle biter abuse and flood attacks comes
from.
> Anyone intent on abuse
> can use a web redirector and trivially get around your filters. You need to
> throttle the OUTPUT into any given group, NO MATTER WHO CLAIMS TO BE SENDING
> OR WHERE IT COMES FROM.
I do throttle on outbound messages, but only using the BI index, dup detetction,
message ID duplicate detection and other methods that I am forced to use because
I *don't know who the author is*. You're asking for me to assume that ALL messages
to one group come from the same author, and if more than 3 messages go to a group
a day, to drop all other messages. Thats totally insane. We might as well just
turn off remailers altogether, which is why I still say your goal is to prevent
all anonymous speech - or at least all but 2-3 messages a day. Thats crazy.
Why don't you try posting no more than 2-3 messages a day. Then try only posting
2-3 messages a day, but only if no one else has posted 2-3 messages in that day
ahead of you. There is no content upon which for the remailer to distinguish
between one user and another. It would be really useful if you could, but the
reality is that the remailer and mail2news gateway can't do this, except by
relying on from: lines, and with my remailer - the from: lines are all the same!
> Given the HUGE diversity of groups, this is not an operative limit for
> LEGITIMATE users of the service (do you really source 60,000 articles a
> day?) but INSTANTLY prevents someone from posting 20 articles a day to
> one group (or set of groups) for the purposes of abuse.
What if those 20 messages are not abuse? You're assuming, incorrectly I
might add, that volume=abuse in every case. Sometimes its OBVIOUS that its
abuse (thats by the BI index is so useful) or via outright duplicate
detection, but volume without context doesn't tell you anything other than
there is alot of volume. What if its a popular group?
- --
Shinn.net Anonymous Remailer Admin
PGP Key 1 ID: 0xD8D5B063 PGP Key 2 ID: 0x3C41F029
Key 1 fingerprint = C069 47E0 DF19 823F 2E34 393F 8A4E EC97
Key 2 fingerprint = A79A C4D7 F859 2F1D 26BE 5B34 9B34 0B29
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQEVAwUBOZQEncQaFjc8QfApAQEl6wf/YQonV3JAhMg1V0tlWwI5O/vxfSCrvlQz
Ud/L4+eDmVHvZZrBkjKUiLd/gVFMVMFn1gg28wYzIn4/zDxVYhSHdLeQlRCyxgGw
loBZQC5AxRtmGyvkfxvaktpIUtClfaTXuqMNEOAjo9Z/OM/yTdqUc0J9DR3yXxcC
/uhdBqRPFoDC5gw1P0u+E89a04eHvrsB+NhSbawWrnXMUdzjTnwBiGSPvnKZZN5G
kcyxKcJVwR+hUIaQwTGHblyBHMsZPnrzdsoL15m/UFC74vA1Fy84cKO43CZweMjm
KqTVFiSkqYAshQR4cqA6L8qPCEfkEIU5dkiWoG8PBJCnnlSBiS4oxQ==
=NJcp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to
In alt.privacy.anon-server fathers...@dragoncon.net wrote:
>>In other words, to abuse with impunity and not be held to account for it.
>>
> While we're at it, let's ban the use of pay telephones as well. Since
> someone can make a harassing phone call without having it traced back
> to them, it stands to reason that the only reason people use pay
> phones, is to abuse with impunity and not be held to account for it.
And, while we're at it, lets ban all e-mail and usenet posts that do not
include a digital signature with the person real name, address, phone
number and a third party signature that verified the persons identity in
person. I mean, afterall, the message can't be postively traced back to
this person without such information, and what do these people have to
hide anyway?
> By your logic, anyway.
Indeed. A slippery slope.
- --
Shinn.net Anonymous Remailer Admin
PGP Key 1 ID: 0xD8D5B063 PGP Key 2 ID: 0x3C41F029
Key 1 fingerprint = C069 47E0 DF19 823F 2E34 393F 8A4E EC97
Key 2 fingerprint = A79A C4D7 F859 2F1D 26BE 5B34 9B34 0B29
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQEVAwUBOZQFHsQaFjc8QfApAQEYIwf+JZo4ZliDYRu8tkS9jzlGYhfPf5fAK+4c
06y+E8GN/RsG6XheCQKmedWMQdorwgLs9AZDKxHNYFVwz1gy9M+mqUPz3wseygFV
Ik7vSNLQgYmwHKnxuOQKh2z5zuGRVlRwhgoI4bqHxzsZOoZ+qevabjRg1jOAEfwu
PyjFg3dX/gLlZoe18XotwC+29mrqftB1dNnufSgxN8h6v1yIwUFf1PeyG+UdaAl5
0ZL05deeuoieCphEt7MAEOz2Ro5GUGAaY0z/XNLOORxplo582IVHSfZXTBvh3PHP
hn/z0aEHmBminJvwgW/gsaYLQC+Q2utsiC243uGqiUOc/IpgmRXxuA==
=zukX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to
In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
>>>>Before you claim you can be tracked because of your host, that isn't a
>>>>given. Understand that there is no way to positively tag a users ID to
>>>>an IP with any ISP, nor should there ever be (See
>>>>http://www.cotse.com/column1.htm for my reasoning on why).
>>
>>> Oh yes there is and yes there absolutely should be.
>>
>>> I ran one of these things (an ISP) for a long time Stephen. I could
>>> absolutely, positively, identify what account a posting came from.
>>
>>But you do not know who is at the keyboard - and THATS the point.
> Not relavent to the issue, really.
No, it is relevant, you're just dismissing it out of had. Stevens point
is that the problem of identifing someone on the net is not caused by
remailers, but by the nature of the interface the person has TO the net.
The model is not trusted and its not a simple matter of proving who
sent a message. Its a difficult thing to do to prove that someone was
online given the information you laid out. Its absolutely relevant
because it demonstrates the folly of trying to prove identities on the
net. Its extremely hard to do, even without remailers.
>>> Every single time. If I got subpoenaed (and occasionally I did) I
>>> could provide a legally-defensible trace that would lead right back to
>>> the TELEPHONE NUMBER of the person placing the call into our POP.
>>
>>And prove nothing unless that person admitted that they were the one
>>online or got caught in the act. I worked with the Secret Service on
>>just those sorts of cases and without either one of those cases, all
>>the information in the world from an ISP isn't worth jack if that
>>person wasn't at the keyboard and you can't prove it (which, in your
>>case you really can't).
> If it came from your telephone line it'll get you busted and your computer
> searched. You had better hope your 'clean room' disk scrubber works REAL
> well.
Sigh... just because it came form my computer does NOT mean I was sitting
at the keyboard. If you have kids (I'm assuming you do) how can this not
be really simply for you to understand? What about your kids friends?
What about their friends and so on. It does not follow that just because
you pay for the phone line, own the computer and pay the mortgage on the
house that you were the person on the computer. You house is not that
secure and neither is the average persons computer. (I suggest you do
some reading on trusted systems - your computer is not a trusted system
and as such, your identity can not be positively verified by the means
you have laid out).
>>> Several times I did exactly that, and people got nailed (and good) for
>>> their abusive activities from our system. In one particular case that
>>> I remember well (due to the particulars) a person got nailed for fraudulent
>>> activity across state lines and prosecuted (I have no idea if they actually
>>> were jailed, but I bet they were as the evidence was pretty damning!)
>>
>>Prosecution does not equal guilt. The fact that you do not know if they
>>were jailed, makes my point. Your information MIGHT help prove the guilt
>>of someone, but it does not prove the guilt by itself. I have seem it happen
>>hundreds of times and its so obvious why it should be that way - you really
>>DON'T know for sure if that person was at the keyboard. You can infer it,
>>but thats not good enough to get beyond probably cause with a good lawyer.
> Sure it is. When the person purported to be the beneficiary of the action
> lives in the house, the phone line goes to that house, the call is
> identified as coming from there and the computer's disk has traces on it
> proving that it came from that keyboard, basic surveillance proves who was
> on the machine at the time.
Yes, OTHER MEANS might prove who was on the machine at the time, but what you
have at the ISP does NOT prove guilt. Again, this bears repeated: ISP logs
do not positively prove the case. I have been hundreds and hundreds of
investigations and in court hundreds of times dealing with electronic threats
against the president (I was the lead computer forensics expert at the White
House in 95 and handled the electronic evidence gathering for ALL e-mail
threats against the president and tried to track the REAL bad guys down - so
I *do* know something about this topic in practical and LEGAL terms) and it
always came down to getting the perp to either confess (you would be
suprised at the number of people that will confess if you tell them you
know something you do not... human nature I suppose "Bob we know you sent
this message" "Yeah... I sent it" Works every time) or otherwise prove
they sent the message, either by proving they were alone in the house (easier
to beat now with BO2K and other trojans) or via some witness or physical
surveillance.
ISP logs can help start an investigation, but they do, by themselves, prove
the identity of the person. It much more complicated than you I think you
are allowing it.
>>> Further, I'm not (and never have) argued making it ILLEGAL to be anonymous.
>>> On the contrary. I'm arguing that IF you are going to have "anonymous"
>>> postings, then they MUST BE ANONYMOUS, and the system should be designed
>>> to discourge abusive uses of that technology!
>>
>>What if its not possible to prevent all forms of, what you call, abuse? Then
>>what?
> Then SOME abuse happens.
Exactly my point. Some abuse WILL happen. It is not possible to prevent all
abuse.
> But designing a system TO BE ABUSED is irresponsible.
Sigh... my remailer and gateway, as with many others, were not designed to be
ABUSED!
>>> Allowing people to plaster SOMEONE ELSE's moniker on a posting isn't an act
>>> of "anonymous posting." Its an act of constructive fraud and forgery, with
>>> you as a willing co-conspirator to the act.
>>
>>NO ONE OWNS MONIKERS! Its not fraud to have the same name as someone else,
>>and if you are too clueless to read the from: line in its entireity that is
>>YOUR PROBLEM. I sign my posts so its clear that my words are mine,
>>because I *KNOW BETTER* and so should you BTW.
> So why not just set FROM to something that nobody can claim? Are you trying
> to create an ANONYMOUS posting service or a way to have a CONVERSATION?
Both.
> The second is INHERENTLY not an anonymous act.
Again with the inability to understand how you can have a conversation via a
remailer. Do I need to repeat again that all messages thru an anonymous
remailer are not automatically unattributable to an author? It IS possible
for an author to prove they sent a message, and to refute a forgery via
digital signatures.
>>Your titling at straw men here. Its not like that at all, and you know it.
>>Anonymous speech can be abused. Its not possible to prevent all forms of
>>abuse. Thats the cost.
> It IS possible to block 90+% of it.
Now you're just making up numbers, but given the volume of traffic thru my
remailers, I would argue that has already happened. Still, I am not sure
what percentage of "abuse" is possible to be blocked. For starters, your
definition of abuse is wildly different from most peoples definition of
abuse (more than 2-3 messages a day does NOT constitute abuse BTW).
>>> Do I need to know with 100% certainty? No, I do not.
>>
>>In a court of law you do, well at least beyond a reasonable doubt. And a good
>>lawyer can beat your evidence any day. Like I said before, I've seen it happen
>>hundreds of times on both sides of court room.
> In a civil suit its a preponderance of the evidence, and you'd lose.
Again, I would not if I could prove it was NOT me. How many civil computer cases
have you been on exactly? I've been on tons of them now, acting for both the
defense and plantiff and I can tell you its very hard to prove identity and very
easy to refute it.
>>Unless I steal that information you (or guess your password, or own the ISP, or
>>find a hole in security model, etc), and spoof the caller ID info - or I
>>drop a trojan or your box, and have it do evil for things as you. Again, its
>>too easy to beat the wrap if you try hard enough with just ISP logs. You
>>need more than that to really nail someone that doesn't want to get caught
>>and won't confess - or otherwise doesn't leave a nice forensics trail on
>>their system (and the clueful ones DON'T). So in the end, you can only
>>infer their identity. (Do you have kids? Haven't you ever had them log on
>>with daddies ISP account?)
> Leave no trail eh? Good luck.
And remailers leave what trail exactly?
Sigh... you have WAY too much confidence in ISP logs. Its too easy to own an
ISP, forge logs (its too easy for the ISP to forge logs! Several cases I have
been an expert witness on involved an ISP framing someone... yes it HAPPENS),
own the users box (trojans), break into their home, steal their password, forge
caller ID (yeah... its fscking easier than you think), block caller ID (where I
live, ISPs do not have a right to demand caller ID from a customer) and on and
on and on. The model is not trusted and the ISP data trail is not enough to
prove guilt. You need more than that to prove guilt, which was Stevens point
and mine - and you it seems you are dismissing it totally out of hand to
avoid having to admit you are wrong.
>>> DtR does not resurrect anonymous postings. At least it didn't the last time
>>> I was in the middle of this nonsense. Things coming from cotse should be
>>> per-se exempt from DtR activity, since they are by definition not
>>> attributable to a person.
>>
>>But, they CAN be attributable to an identity with digital signatures, so in
>>that case, your point is moot.
> The instances I'm referring to here have all lacked digital signatures.
> Try again.
So? That doesn't mean an anonymous can not be aatributed to a person, which is
what you keep going on about. BTW, why don't you sign your messages? Do you
want to have plausible deniability? As far as I am concerned, you like rather
hypocritical going on about people needing to identify themselves, while you
are hiding behind not signing your messages. Seems rather hypocritical to me.
- --
Shinn.net Anonymous Remailer Admin
PGP Key 1 ID: 0xD8D5B063 PGP Key 2 ID: 0x3C41F029
Key 1 fingerprint = C069 47E0 DF19 823F 2E34 393F 8A4E EC97
Key 2 fingerprint = A79A C4D7 F859 2F1D 26BE 5B34 9B34 0B29
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQEVAwUBOZQJ/8QaFjc8QfApAQHWNwf+JnddWv0EBLy0Ceop3dA4lFpd4/zmAKaG
edT+ezrtxC9lX2MpI5KzDaQZW0BsRY8TsKBt1X8GdH9rtmZwpdr0+qBoYGFN8UWP
jIxzJfw+BKl1+6Hxasat80bf7X43GgGjYkUcsTeMtRTCsJk2gePReYRBQqSQRi9g
abBPW7JLn7+15fBqi0ijz9b13jJCp0TZLa+/DCwM/RGDfpaUZZ8sgVA/APcoh9Z+
IGy2ZvfIao+3dO/i2POXr6JKrTBSexKB/G1eT3wMgeYrFagXKFHtfXRMuXkWxCdY
/5eoOqtwlGyuI+jfV9jMjA4D1CsKrZiIm/7XHNVa7+0s1r9mdyd7Pw==
=aLV6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to
In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
>>You really do have some notions about freedom of speech.
> You're a hypocrite if you think freedom of speech only includes speech you
> agree with. Perhaps you need to cogitate on the fact that nobody ever
> bothers to try to ban speech that isn't offensive.
Where did you get this idea from? Afterall, *I* run a remailer. Clearly I
do not object to spending my OWN money to help propigate speech I do not
agree with and clearly I understand the NEED for protecting offensive
speech. No need to try and explain that to me, I pratice what I preach
every single day and ask for nothing in return except that my rights not
be abridged to speak my mind either.
>>>>The process to change the charter of a public newsgroup is known.
>>>>Resurrecting the moderated newsgroup would remove the flame war from where
>>>>most people would post..
>>
>>> Incorrect. It will not remove them from here, nor from any of the regional
>>> groups.
>>
>>Sigh... and?
> That's the point under debate, which you are intentionally ignoring.
No, I'm not ignoring it. If you want a moderated newsgroup, go create one.
- --
Shinn.net Anonymous Remailer Admin
PGP Key 1 ID: 0xD8D5B063 PGP Key 2 ID: 0x3C41F029
Key 1 fingerprint = C069 47E0 DF19 823F 2E34 393F 8A4E EC97
Key 2 fingerprint = A79A C4D7 F859 2F1D 26BE 5B34 9B34 0B29
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQEVAwUBOZQLScQaFjc8QfApAQGWrQf+PjgF9KXVhMU6gITjpk+dKCU85PzrBvqR
sYNYpgS1CSRMRVhve8e6DfpqWapcbaT2TdM56tpxeihCZuN66IH/Z+GAM+ypcAnC
2Oxx9jB8ULLJCqpIA44YiH7MwbDtgKwVW7kISAuTh9qJSX2YMYe6mKGuoeGSo5/E
tMJKVxQo4UKXkYpbXFTshAwY/1MOLlaRAw6QNx1X1nxO7g4nnJmJEM+nWaY7NQoc
fdasc5Qu2Nx4Ko9BZHJ81fHOqDzen632PV+GJt54Huos29nEtzF6+rJfJICv44e5
CeHCRtzBDCvpbEDNSh7zfzaAK4iQI9280e2QDis37kH8LtLK61PSqw==
=RvbT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Wilbur Streett
>In article <3993361a....@news.monmouth.com>,
>Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
>>ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger) wrote:
>>>
>>>Not relavent Wilbur.
>>
>>Yes, it is quite relevant. Your attempts to claim that messages can be
>>definatively sources are bunk. Your claims that the responsibility lies
>>with the ISP to filter the world is bunk. You don't like a remailer, then
>>KILLFILE it on your machine.
>
>Ah, but suggesting to others that they killfile it is not legitimate?
You're not suggesting to me that I killfile, you're attempting to determine
for me what IS killfiled.
>Why not Wilbur?
See above.
>I thought we both have the right to speak freely (which includes asking others
>not to listen to certain people or certain sources of speech)
Yeah, so why do you feel that you have to control the medium?
>>If you want to talk about fathers' rights, then do it.
>
>I'm talking about the abuse of anonymous remailers by people who *CLAIM* to
>be interested in father's rights.
Ken Pangborn has not claimed to be interested in Fathers Rights. Your
assertion that you know WHO has been posting through anonymous remailers is
quite ridiculas.
>I argue that they are interested in no such thing and that ALL OF THEM
>are "plugged into" in this issue for their own financial interest to the
>specific detriment of kids.
I see the anonymous flame wars as exactly the opposite. The peope that are
making their financial fortunes off of the misfortune of fathers would seek
to insure that this communications medium not be a source of fathers coming
together, so that they can continue their fleecing of fathers.
>And oh, by the way, remember that message you forwarded me about Moore
>saying he was TAKING DOWN HIS KEN PANGBORN WEB PAGES? He has done NO SUCH
>THING.
Gee, you don't follow netiquette, now do you?
I guess you missed that AOL pulled Ken's account, or why David said he was
talking the pages down.
>That is, he LIED to you Wilbur.
Hardly, read the entire message that I sent you.
>I checked it this afternoon.
I'm thinking that I'm seeing a pattern here.
>>>If its "valid" then why not post it from your own account?
>>
>>If it's valid, then why be forced to post it from any particular account?
>
>If you're claiming authorship, then do so. If you're disclaiming
>authorship, then do so.
I'm sorry that you mistake validity of content with being able to source a
message. I'm sorry that you think that you desire to require everyone to
post in your limited ways is freedom of speech.
>You can't have it both ways ON DEMAND and EX-POST FACTO.
I'm sorry, yes, you can. If someone validates that they wrote something,
then it's accepted in court.
>You DO know the meaning of that, right?
Yeah, so. As the other guy has been pointing out, how do you know who is
at the keyboard? How do you know that someone didn't forge my messages?
>>What motivation do you have? Why are you attempting to claim that despite
>>being able to validate the source through communications to a user at
>>Dragoncon, that he must for your own selfish means, post through ANET?
>
>What if he refuses to validate a given post?
So what.
>This is known as selective denial, or more commonly in the political arena,
>plausable deniability.
So what.
>And in this case, you now have someone who has a DOCUMENTED RECORD in your
>HANDS of lying TO YOU - and you say you'd believe him if he "took credit"
>for a given post?
Nope.
>How many times do you have to be lied to before it counts Wilbur?
Lies don't count, that's the entire point.
>If you use it on the net, its better called ANONYMOUS POSTING, which means
>what it says. But since you can't then take ownership of it, as you
>RESERVED THE RIGHT TO DISCLAIM IT LATER, I can take that ownership AND
>CANCEL IT without recourse.
I'm sorry, anonymous posts do not meet my definition of lies. What Ken
Pangborn has done in this newsgroup for more than a year does. You have no
proof that the anonymous posts where from Ken Pangborn, David Moore, or
anyone else. If you are unable to determine and understand the nature of a
message with no source, that's your problem.
>>For all that you know, both players on both sides might be looking to use
>>the flame war to further Ken Pangborn's business..
>
>For all I know both "sides" are either Ken Pangborn or David Moore - that
>is, BOTH may be one person.
Yeah, so get over it.
>>>The only reason not to do that is to maintain the ability to SELECTIVELY
>>>deny authorship.
>>
>>.. You mean like the obvious posts that are being made in support of Ken
>>Pangborn through anonymous remailers?
>
>Gee, they'll get killed too.
Oh yeah, sure. Like they won't find a way to get around your bot.
>>I'm sorry, Karl, as I explained to you on the phone, some group out there,
>>probably associated with Ken Pangborn, is flooding ISPs with complaints
>>against anyone that says anything on this newsgroup.
>
>Which has nothing to do with "anonymous" postings.
As numerous people have already explained, YES IT DOES. GoodFather
specifically emailed me that he got several messages from Ken Pangborn
looking for a retainer, and that the advices that he got was not relevant
to what he was dealing with. This after Ken Pangborn had already CALLED
HIM DAVID MOORE, (he isn't). I asked him to post that information to the
newsgroup and then he specifically stated that he didn't want to be
involved in the Ken Pangborn flame war, he was too busy trying to get to
see his kid. Guess what his reason for posting through the anonymous
remailer was?
But someone managed to post who he was anyway, and probably triple the mess
that he was dealing with.
>If people are doing
>that, they will do that whether you post "anonymously" or not, provided
>you put a "real" name in the headers.
So why don't you know where David Moore is actually posting from?
>Your argument is nonsense.
I think that I supported it just fine.
>> My ISP bothered to
>>read what I actually posted, and had no problems with it. Other ISP's
>>don't have the same level of staff, and simply cancel the account and let
>>someone else deal with the problem.
>
>So what? Now you want to dictate to ISPs what their level of customer
>service and tolerance for people's bullshit is? What's next?
I'm sorry that you don't understand the purpose of anonymous remailers.
Get over it.
>>>In other words, to abuse with impunity and not be held to account for it.
>>
>>.. which happened before anonymous remailers. But you didn't allow me to
>>get into the William Carbondale discussion.
>
>Again, not relavent TO THE POINT AT HAND.
Sure it is. But you don't even know who William Carbondale is. Why it's
relevant or anything like that. You don't know if the name is real, or
not. You don't know anything about it. Gee, sounds like the 4 words and
interrupt that you claim that I engage in.
>>>>You have a strange idea of what constitutes validation of a message source,
>>>>and proof of delivery.
>>>>
>>>>Wilbur
>>>
>>>Irrelavent, once again, to the point at hand.
>>
>>Hardly. You claim that the source can not be verified, and I pointed out
>>that it can.
>
>No it can't. It can be SELECTIVELY denied by the purported author, whether
>they wrote it or not.
That it can be selectively denied was not the claim. That the source can
be verified was the claim.
>> Noise is noise. If you personally don't like it, then turn
>>on your killfile.
>
>I have the right to ask others to kill the message as well, since doing so
>is a form of speech.
Not for me you don't.
>Those others (news admins) have the right to either
>ignore me or take my request and act on it.
.. and they can be asked to filter messages without you bringing the entire
OFF TOPIC discussion to this newsgroup.
>> But as I told you, several people have posted personal
>>issues to this newsgroup using anonymous remailers and have received help.
>
>STILL not relavent.
Yeah, you don't want people to get help unless they can be hunted down.
>Further, if you want a place to post such things, do your resurrection of
>the moderated group and people can post anonymously *AFTER BEING LOOKED AT
>BY A MODERATOR* <IN THERE>.
.. and as I said, if you want to change the character of this UNMODERATED
newsgroup, THEN CHANGE THE CHARTER.
>That, along with killing the anonymous posts HERE, solves the problem
>without removing the ability of people to use anonymous postings for
>LEGITIMATE purpose.
Sorry that you think that you are the only person that can define
LEGITIMATE for the world.
>Quit shilling for your sock puppet,
Gee, the only one that has claimed that I'm a sock puppet for David Moore
has been Ken Pangborn and crew. Why are you now claiming that. As I
explained to you on the phone, I'm not supporting David Moore.
Stop the false attributions.
>who is now a DOCUMENTED liar Wilbur
I have not seen documentation that meets my standard of proof. Please
provide me with a reference to something that meets your standards, and
I'll determine for myself if it meets my standards.
Ken Pangborn on the other hand has specifically lowered himself to that
standard on several occasions.
>to your own standards and with the documentation in your own hands!
Your attempts to claim that when he took the pages down because he wanted
to insure that AOL didn't think that it was just another stupid flame ware
was a lie leave me unimpressed.
>Or are you now going to tell me that the email which YOU forwarded to me,
>purportedly by David Moore SAYING that he was going to pull down all his
>Pangborn web page material, was forged?
I suppose that you have missed that Ken Pangborn lost his AOL account, at
least that's the accepted premise right now? Even as David Moore pointed
out, we have no actual validation of that, other than someone posting out
of Earthlink.
>David is a documented liar Wilbur. Documented by his own hand with the
>proof to your standards of identification in your own email Inbox.
Nope. I'm sorry that you have such a poor ability to grasp reality.
>You forwarded said letter to me.
>
>The pages are still up.
>
>He LIED.
How do you know what I said in reply to him?
But he's not allowed change his mind even though the motivations WHICH HE
STATED are gone?
>What's your NEXT excuse for not supporting shutting this asshole down?
I don't have any excuse. I don't need one. Your motivations are becoming
more and more obvious.
>From where I sit you're running out of 'em.
It's quite clear that you have no idea where you are sitting.
Wilbur Streett
><ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to> wrote in message
>news:s3Kk5.23$J....@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>> In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
>
>> >>Uh... hello!? Thats what anonymity is ALL ABOUT. Its a
>constitutionally protected right to not be required to identify yourself as
>the author of something. Your speaking in tautologies and you're really
>missing the >point. Of course anonymity is about denying authorship!
>
> In this case authorship of harassment! Denying authorchip of posts to
>sex deviant newsgroups trying to INCITE the rape and muder of the wives and
>children of YOUR USER'S debate opponents. Yeah, if I were doing that, *I*
>would want to deny it too! But then if *I* were the operator of a remailer,
>*I* wouldn't come out in public to DEFEND that and make a CLOWN of myself
>before the entire world!
Falsely attributing posts is harrasment also.
<snipo>
ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to
In alt.privacy.anon-server Kenneth Pangborn <kenpa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
>> >>Uh... hello!? Thats what anonymity is ALL ABOUT. Its a
> constitutionally protected right to not be required to identify yourself as
> the author of something. Your speaking in tautologies and you're really
> missing the >point. Of course anonymity is about denying authorship!
> In this case authorship of harassment! Denying authorchip of posts to
> sex deviant newsgroups trying to INCITE the rape and muder of the wives and
> children of YOUR USER'S debate opponents. Yeah, if I were doing that, *I*
> would want to deny it too! But then if *I* were the operator of a remailer,
> *I* wouldn't come out in public to DEFEND that and make a CLOWN of myself
> before the entire world!
I'm not defending abusive users, I'm looking at the consequences of trying to
stop abusive users as it relates to legitimate remailer users. You are clearly
not even considering that, which is extremely selfish. Not everyone lives in
a country or has a problem that they can open discuss without fear of reprisal.
Anonymity is a shield, thats all it is. You can do ethical or unethical things
from behind that shield, as you can with many useful and necessary things in
life. Technology is morally ambiguous.
>> I don't allow anyone to change the from for posts from my remailer.
> SURE YOU DO! Moore posted at least a dozen FORGERIES from YOUR system to
> my screen name in the past 2 days.
Sigh... you do not own your screen name and the from: line clearly shows that
the message did not come from you - so no, I do NOT allow forgeries and if you
can not understand that, then there is no reaching you. Furthermore, your
e-mail client can do the same thing - so should we ban your e-mail client?
>> > Why, because you don't want to REALLY have anonymous posts, right?
>> Not at all. I think you are lumping *all* remailers into the same
> category. I do not allow users to change the e-mail part of the from line
> so that it is obvious the message is coming from my remailer, and further
> (As will all remailers) there is a clear disclaimer in the header that the
> message senders identity is not known to the MTA - and therefore that you
> should not rely on that information to identify the sender (nor should you
> ever rely on that information alone to identify the sender of a message, as
> you know from lines are trivial to forge and with so many open relays these
> days it pretty easy to do a complete forgery that might even fool a clueful
> person).
> Uh, like yourself? That would be EASY to prevent with software. All of
> it. And if you can't find people to write the hosting software to prevent
> those abuses, I could easily point you to some unemployed software people in
> California who could whip that out for you in a week.
Tell them to whip it out in a week then. Perhaps it might help educate you
to the fact that it is not "EASY to prevent with software" as you have do
erroniously jumped to the conclusion on.
>> >>You want to force the author of a text to be identified, and what you
> seem to be missing is that its a human right NOT to be forced to identify
> yourself when speaking.
> So let me understand your "LOGIC" here and see if I get it. There is a
> GOD GIVEN HUMAN RIGHT not to have to identify yourself
Yep. There is with speech.
``The public would not be well served by compelling an
(internet service provider) to examine and screen millions
of e-mail communications, on pain of liability for defamation.''
- Ruling in Lunney vs. Prodigy Services Co., 99-1430.
as affirmed by the US Supreme Court
``Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a
pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition
of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the
tyranny of the majority.''
- Justice Stevens: McIntyre v Ohio Election Commission
majority opinion
Legal information about online anonymity:
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/mcintyre.html
http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/ocean.htm
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/talley_v_california.html
Legal information about liability of ISPs for the content of
e-mail and bulletin board postings by their users:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,36012,00.html
http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/drudge/80423opin.htm
Legal information about use of "offensive" speech:
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/cohen.html
>> No I'm not. You've jumped to a totally unfounded conclusion. I do not
> allow y users to forge from: lines. You would do well to know the facts
> *before* you make hypostatic leaps.
> HOW MANY EXAMPLES would you like from MY archives and a certain law
> enforcement agency of FORGED from-lines from YOUR system? Ones with RACIST
> and ant-semetic rants???????????
> Ones calling for the "EXTERMINATION OF ALL JEWS?" From YOUR SYSTEM!!
Please, provide one example, I dare you.
>> That is NOT asking people not to listen, that is CENSORSHIP. You do not
> have the *RIGHT* to CENSOR someone elses words. Do you not understand that?
> Where do you get off thinking that you have the moral right to decide what
> *OTHER* people should read?
> The same place where we get the idea that is is not legal to go into a
> crowded theater and shout "FIRE!!!!!!"
Actually, this is a bit of a myth.
>>> Do you not see the moral bankruptcy in this part of your argument?
>> You sound like a reasonable person (otherwise I wouldn't bother), but I
> really fail to see where you arrived at the conclusion that you are someone
> how morally justified in canceling posts. If you want a moderated
> newsgroup, you know what to do - and that does not include canceling posts
> ad hoc that you do not think other people should read.
> You are WRONG sir! Society always has the right to police itself!
> It is called the rule of law. It is also called majority rule.
The majorty can not tyrannize the minority. Just because the majority
wants something, does not make it right for them to demand it. Thats why
we have consitutions and checks and balances in the USofA.
>> >>The cost of living without anonymity is far FAR too high.
> WRONG! YOU have helped make it CHEAP and you lack the intellect to
> understand that., YOU are the one who treats it all so trivially.
Whatever, you're clearly not even interested in reasoning or listening, so
I'm growing weary of even responding to you and this is the FIRST post of
yours I've read.
>> > You CAN prevent it from being abused, or at least lessen the risk.
>> Yes, and I have taken what I consider to be reasonable measures to
> prevent abuse and keep an open mind about how I might improve the
> model.
> First - you REALLY prevent forgeries from being sent from your system.
Yes, you are right, I REALLY prevent forgeries from being sent from my
system. Thank you for finally admitting that.
> Whatever you THINK you have done has not worked.
Ok, now you are contradicting yourself (perhaps a typo on your part) so
prove it.
> ONE thing you could do is block people who ABUSE your system, may I note
> that OTHER remailers HAVE done so????????????
I don't think you understand how remailers work. Let me explain:
User sends message to remailer A.
Remailer 1 sends message to Remailer 2.
Remailer 2 sends message to Remailer 3.
[insert more remailers if desired]
Remailer 3 sends message to destination.
Remailer 3 does not know who the user is, where the user is and is not ABLE to
block that user from sending messages specifically thru their remailer.
> Which YOU REFUSE TO DO! At least FOUR have banned the miscreant who abuses
> the process. YOU stand out as the main one who does NOT!
Nonsense. See the above explanation as further proof that you don't know what
you are talking about.
>> Nonsense. I do extraordinary things to prevent abuse. From flood
> control, to duplicate detection, inbound IP based throttling, known spam
> source filtering, RBL, RSS and ORBS subscriptions and so on. Your
> solution, mass cancelations is horrid and immoral IMO - and would do more
> harm than good (WAY more harm). You would destroy all anonymous speech thru
> your mass canceling jihad for what? So you can chill the speech of ONE
> person? Doesn't that strike you
> as a bit EXTREME?!
> Nope. No more "EXTREME" than banning somebody from yelling "FIRE" in a
> theater, or walking into somebody's home and yelling racial epithets at
> them. No more than making it a crime to incite a riot.
Again, you really don't have a clue how remailers work if you think its as
easy as just turning off an account or kicking someone off an ISP. I have no
more information about this person or persons that alleged is posting messages
to usenet that offend or upset you.
>> That speaks volumes about you as some sort of lunatic. Can't you see
> that? If you sincerely want remailer operators to listen, you could start
> by losing the rhetoric.
> It is quite clear to most people that SOME remailer operators are
> co-conspirators with some of the net punks. That some remailer operators see
> the forgeries, spoofs, and calls for the rape of children as actually
> "funny!"
For the record, I do not. I challenge you to prove me wrong.
> Some folks see you as not fully grow'd men.
Darn... you don't like me? Rats, does that mean I won't get a xmas card from
you?
> As bad AS the David
> Moores. Responsible adults would never tolerate such behavior in their
> business.
What business? My remailer is in my house.
> The fact that you are TRYING to wage a PR war suggests you are
> finally getting sensitive to the growing sentiment to eliminate services
> such as yours.
Yeah, its a PR war that I'm waging. If I express my opinion about something
I care about, its a PR war not me doing what you are doing. If we use your
logic, then you are waging a PR war too.
> The simple answer, of course, is to STOP the abuse from your
> system.
And your suggestion for this is?
> All your confounding rhetoric doesn't serve to answer the problem.
> MOST of the people you are trying to BS with claims that "it can't be
> helped" KNOW better, many have programming skills.
Again, where is this vaunted and infalliable solution for preventing
abuse that speak of? Please, present it to me if it exists. I will
gladly look into using it.
> My problem with you has always been one of a personality conflict. I
> just can't abide people who pee all over my shoes, and then when I complain,
> try to belittle ME, telling me that I am crazy, that it is really raining
> out!
I've never belittled you, EVER. I've never peed on your shoes or callously
disregarded an abuse complaint from you. I've never called you crazy or
dismissed you out of hand - you, however, seem ready to insult me, lash out
at me and dismiss me as some immoral miscreant totally out of hand. Try to
consider for a moment that I'm actually taking the time to try and respond
to your concerns and that I will and HAVE taken steps to prevent abuse of
my systems - but I am also trying to balance those steps with the need for
the system to be useful to its legitimate users. Its not possible for the
system to 100% foolproof against "abuse". I wish that it were, but it
is not.
> Constant insulting the intelligence of those who came to you BEGGING
> for help.
I have never insulted your intelligence, which is not what I can say for you.
> Now all you can do is call us "extremists." And you don't
> understand the contempt people feel for you. I don't know if you are married
> or have children.
Yes, I am a human being just like you are, with a wife, a family, friends and
so on. So no moral high ground for you there.
BTW, if you had used a remailer to post to the net, your family would not have
been allegedly harassed - because no one would know who you are TO harrass you.
Has it ever dawned on you that remailers were created BECAUSE of what has
happened to you? Its true. I know from personal experience, THATS why I run
a remailer. You would be wise to learn from the mistakes of others. Its sad,
but the net is no longer a place when you should EVER reveal your real identity
unless you are prepared to be harassed.
- --
Shinn.net Anonymous Remailer Admin
PGP Key 1 ID: 0xD8D5B063 PGP Key 2 ID: 0x3C41F029
Key 1 fingerprint = C069 47E0 DF19 823F 2E34 393F 8A4E EC97
Key 2 fingerprint = A79A C4D7 F859 2F1D 26BE 5B34 9B34 0B29
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQEVAwUBOZQSQsQaFjc8QfApAQGTJwf/e0s69pyWSAoih5b7r4X7erJMr75asWeB
umHnqB2WMuyCxOljapFudAefiWMZbBxBzvLhD+Jcd+/p+D5QW7KEjKwmHi/50pBV
QAmNezlbJ/Ordu513cPpk3DLglPWVytS9nijOLDE1s6OZYgmQ8aHChtUOm0iGKI+
7WYWhxWUkuIS2h7Dm2Dj11x16Xj5dMWPdVb/HhhJxAoKqB7VsnbCLmpMxM1d3o4U
jDEA+4GPPEMpxJVPpg2+0XpHa7/fJ9BCoiiv/cxYLoD9WQp8M0r0MDzbtb4k48ZZ
u/AnRncx4jpXjOXlJjq5x2/9b/1T/VpMPuNfjHIVtgPTVJybdipQiw==
=mvtS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Karl Denninger
<ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to> wrote:
>
>> This will permit *precisely targeted* cancels to stop abuse in *specific*
>> groups issued by SPECIFIC remailers. It will NOT kill all remailers or
>> even a specific remailer in ALL groups.
>
>Unless someone runs it against all groups, which someone will. I suppose its
>a good thing alot of news servers no longer honor third party cancels.
Maybe.
But, again, there are already people who have these tools. Most of them
can't be "tuned" for this kind of purpose. This one can.
>> The only reason its not yet out there is that I'm happy to debate this with
>> remailer operators FIRST to see if a reasonable set of accomodations can be
>> reached that will stop the abuse but not significant impair the legitimate
>> uses of their service.
>
>Again, your proposal is?
Already posted it.
>>>> Again, you miss the point.
>>>
>>>> You may post "anonymously".
>>>
>>>> I may ask people not to listen, by sending cancels.
>>>
>>>That is NOT asking people not to listen, that is CENSORSHIP.
>
>> No, it is free speech. I am speaking (to the computers of the net) just as
>> you are.
>
>You're splitting hairs and dodging the issue. A cancel is an ACTION its not
>speech in even the perceptive sense of this debate, its an ACTION to delete a
>piece of speech - and you full well know this. Context IS everything in this
>case.
No, its a REQUEST for someone to take an ACTION.
Burning a flag is an ACTION.
But the courts have held that its a valid exercise of the first-amendment
right to free SPEECH, even though setting fire to something is an ACTION.
>> I am asking them to remove what you said. They may or may not
>> comply with my request, at the WHIM OF THE OWNER OF THAT MACHINE.
>
>True, but that does not give you the *right* to do it, any more so than I have
>a right to ask your system to do things because I am assuming that because it
>*can* do it, that you want me to be able to do it. Should I be allowed to do
>whatever I want to or with your system if your system allows me to do it?
You're allowed to make that request, provided that you do so within the
parameters originally designed, yes. Where you cross the line into
"hacking" is when you attempt to get a piece of software or hardware to do
things it was not intended and designed to do.
The Cancel request is typically configured as an UNAUTHENTICATED request to
remove an article. The owner of the server may configure this request path
to do any one of a number of things, including requiring authentication
such as a PGP signature. Some people disable it entirely.
>> I most certainly do have the RIGHT to request that someone not listen to
>> you.
>
>Yes, you can request that, but you can not take actions to directly abridge
>my rights to free speech.
Bull-hockey. I can make that request to the third party. What THEY do is
entirely up to them - not up to you, and not up to me.
>> The only person with the RIGHT to make that decision is the OWNER OF
>> THE NEWS MACHINE. Not you, not me, not someone else.
>
>True, but it does not follow that just because a system CAN do something
>that it acceptable to do that thing with that system. Intent is everything,
>and its clear your intent, when issuing a cancel, is to abridge someones
>right to free speech. Just because you can do it, does not make it OK nor
>does it mean that the news server operator wants you to do it (afterall
>people DO misconfigure systems all the time and software DOES have bugs).
Of course it means the news server operator wants me to do so. If, that is,
He or she has configured the system as a "free for all" where such commands
are accepted without authentication!
If such a command is not to be accepted without authentication, then
requiring a PGP signature and key matching the original posting could be
done. Or cancels could be (and frequently are) turned off entirely. Those
are OPTIONS.
>> All *I* can do, just as all *YOU* can do, is issue REQUESTS to machines that
>> we do not own. We can do nothing more.
>
>Well, we can do more, but most of that would be either illegal or unethical -
>or both. ;-)
Well yeah, ok.
>> You, like I, like the rest of us out here, can issue only SUGGESTIONS.
>> Those SUGGESTIONS may be honored or ignored, at the whim of the OWNER of
>> those machines.
>
>Point taken, so the moral of the story is, no news server with a CLUE
>should ever accept third party cancels. Got it. Thanks for the update.
Actually, news servers should set whatever policy they wish, since I am not
empowered to set policy for other people's private property. Your fallacy
is (and has been throughout this debate) that you believe you have a RIGHT
to demand that someone else do things "your way".
>> I had this debate a THOUSAND times when I ran an ISP. The bottom line was
>> always the same - my computer, my rules. If you don't like it then fuck
>> off. And yes, that was PRECISELY how I expressed that position.
>
>I'm sure your customers loved you.
My policies were expressed in the system user agreement that you got - and
signed - before you got an account.
>> If I had a nickel for every time some asshole tried to tell me that I *HAD*
>> to take this group or that group, or that I was CENSORING their "right" to
>> get kiddie porn, stolen software or scans from men's magazines (this was
>> before MP3s became all the rage, natch) I'd be so rich I could buy the
>> entire country of Cuba!
>
>Thats not terribly rich BTW.
Its a hell of a lot more than I have now! :-)
>> MY COMPUTER, MY CHOICE.
>
>I agree, provided that you are not clearly attacking my system.
A cancel is not an "attack".
> There is a
>gray area here that you are dismissing somewhat our of hand, indeed it is
>true that a cancel is a request - but, intent is everything with the law.
>Your actions may technically be acceptable via the RFC, but your intentions
>and actions may add up to a breech of the law. Although, I personally have
>little patience for such attempts to regulate behavior when its clear that
>the protocol is flawed and can not be trusted - as with cancel requests.
Baw.
There is no violation of the law when cancels are issued. If there were
then the Hip* people would all be in jail. But they're not. Yeah, they
occasionally lose accounts, and using this software may be a violation of
someone's AUP, but its not *illegal*.
My actions are in fact acceptable per the definition of the protocol in the
RFCs. Ever hear of "malicious prosecution"? You can get sued for it, you
know, and a server operator has enough money these days to be interesting
(I'd like a few terabytes of disk and a nice big processor to go with it),
which means they'd be fools to try to come after someone on this basis.
>> Beyond the boundaries of MY COMPUTER, all I can do is issue SUGGESTIONS.
>
>Again, you can do more than just issue SUGGESTIONS.
Nope. Not within the boundaries of the RFCs I can't.
>>>My news server appears to expired out that message, so if you would not
>>>mind please repeat those examples and I will sincerely consider them.
>
>> Certainly:
>
>> The goals here are to:
>
>> 1. Cut abusive use of remailers down to a level where it is lost
>> in the noise level from legitimate use.
>
>> 2. NOT have to track individual users of those remailers (which
>> voids the concept of anonymous use in the first place) through
>> any database.
>
>> If you're willing to violate #2, then its easy, but since I assume you're
>> not (and neither are the others who run these things) we end up somewhat
>> limited in what we can do.
>
>> Ok, let's take a good look at what CAN be done:
>
>> 1. Create a set of alt.* groups SPECIFICALLY for anonymous postings.
>> Generic names for them should be sufficient - "alt.whistle-blower.us",
>> etc. A couple hundred of these should be able to cover the gamut
>> fairly well.
>
>I see a few problems with this:
>
>1) I don't think it would reduce abuse. Remailers are not the only way to
>post anonymously.
But they're certainly one of them.
>2) It defeats the purpose of anonymity in relgating it to the back waters
>of the net and denying persons their right to post anonymously, when and
>where they choose.
You simply don't have that right. You have a right to speak freely, but not
wherever and whenever you choose. This is why there are "free speech" malls
at universities and elsewhere, where such things can be done without
interference from local gendarme, and it is EXPLICITLY to protect people's
right to free speech that such forums are established.
> Your proposal is throwing out all anonymous speech
>from all newsgroups except some variation of the redlight district
>for anonymous speech.
Wrong again; you didn't read the rest of the proposal before attacking it.
Typical.
That's not my proposal. Please read the whole thing.
>> 2. Posting to those SPECIFIC groups is unbridled and unthrottled.
>> If you want to send 200 messages a day, go right ahead. Now there
>> is ALWAYS a place you can post "anonymously" for legitimate purpose.
>> Or not, for that matter. Sane people will probably stay out.
>
>Your last sentence really helps support my point. Your proposal would make
>it impossible to read those newsgroups. Why on earth would I want to NOT
>throttle? I have resources I want to protect too! :-)
It would? Only if people abused it....
>> 3. STRIP all URLs and things that APPEAR to be email addresses from
>> "anonymously" posted material. Yes, this is imperfect since its a
>> robot, but this prevents someone from posting "anonymously" but
>> either pretending to be someone else (real common) or using it
>> to spam for some service or other "reference".
>
>I already strip out all user generated headers, so forging someone identity
>thru my remailer or my mail2news gateway is not possible. As far as stripping
>out URLs, its tempting to think that would stop the spammers, but looking
>at my mail2news gateway logs, the dup detetection, BI index, throttling and
>other anti-UCE measures so a fine job of filtering them out now. All URL
>filtering would accomplish at this point is make it impossible for people to
>post legitimate URLs. Content based filtering, as I'm sure you know, is a
>notoriously difficult and error prone method. I have serious concerns about
>the purely negative effect of just stripping out URLs ad hoc.
What legitimate URLs, and what purely negative effects? If you tag a URL
then you just claimed authorship, since that URL goes somewhere traceable!
>> This leaves
>> straight textual messages intact. If you want to get fancy
>> pattern-match for phone numbers and other personally identifying
>> things that have easily-recognized formats (like SSNs) and rip
>> them out too.
>
>Hmmm... again, I'm leary of content based filtering. Look at the commerical
>content filtering packages like web nanny and others (I'm not singling any
>of them out, this applies to ALL of them) they are notoriously wrong and
>its been suggested that the companies are engaging in political speech
>filtering and otherwise have resorted to using their platform as some form
>of personal platform for forwarding their agenda (even filtering out URLs
>to sites that are critical of their products, or even their competitors
>sites). The point is that content based filtering is a slippery slope, and
>when you really start down this path I don't see how its not a forgone
>conclusion that it will become corupted quickly. Additionally, its too
>easy to filter out content that has a legitimate purpose. Context is
>important with speech too. I wish it were as easy as you suggest to
>keep the "bad speech" out, but its not. If it were, you would see it in
>widespread use.
How? What's wrong with *your* machine, YOUR rules? Corrupted by WHOM?
(other than you, of course, in which case is it "corrupt"?!)
>> 4. DO NOT permit setting the FROM line or inserting any custom
>> headers into what you post.
>
>I already do this, as do alot of other remailers. However, its absurd to
>rely on from lines to identify anyone and anyone that does is a fool and
>I can not be sympathetic to them. Its sad that people STILL think from:
>lines prove something. They do not. Use digital signatures ALL THE TIME.
Yep. People should fix their systems so that its obvious, however.
Misleading people is "bad", particularly when you know you're doing it and
can do something about it.
>> SUBJECT (filtered as (3) above)
>> goes through untouched, but the rest is stripped out and replaced
>> with a generic that, if replied to, gives you a robotic reply
>> specifying the particulars of how the remailer works AND THAT THE
>> SENDER HAS DISCLAIMED AUTHORSHIP BY USING IT.
>
>The author does not disclaim authorship just because they post thru an
>anonymous remailer. An author can sign a post with PGP (or S/MIME, or
>gpg) using a pseudonym, and should they need to in the future, they
>can always reveal their identity to the word (signing that message of
>course) or continue on with the pseudonym and digitial signatures and
>prove the validity of messages as they see fit. The bottom line is that
>you have an erronious misconception that just because a message goes thru
>the remailer network that the author does not want to claim authorship
>under some nym. That is simply not true, so you would do well to stop
>beating this drum.
I'm pointing out that it SHOULD be anonymous if it is claimed to be. Be one
or be the other.
>> 5. Make known those conditions - that by using it you are DISCLAIMING
>> authorship.
>
>No. Again, non-sequitor. Just because you use a remailer, does not mean
>you want to disclaim authorship nor does it mean, or is it appropriate, to
>say so. Not all remailer users disclaim authorship.
I'm talking about what things should be, not what they are.
>Again: PGP, GPG or S/MIME. This post I am typing RIGHT NOW is a perfect
>example of a post that I can prove was signed by my PGP key, and you can
>prove as well. You do not need to know my real identity to know this. Is
>this clear or do I need to explain further? (I'm not trying to be snide,
>I'm just concerned that you really seem to not be picking this important
>point up. Its critical in this discussion because you seem to a misunderstanding
>about remailers that is fundamentally flawed)
I'm picking it up, but I disagree with your contention that it is
necesary.
>> 6. Finally, THROTTLE anonymous postings to a single group to a small
>> number PER DAY (say, 2 or 3), and PROHIBIT crossposting entirely.
>
>As I have said before, its not that easy. If I were to do this, you, were
>you to use a remailer (and ALOT of decent people do) would not be able to
>respond to this message for probably a week given the volume of posts you
>made - and none of them were worthy of being throttled away. So again, your
>idea is something I already do via other means, but its far more difficult
>to throttle than you give it credit for. What if its a high traffic group?
Throttle on a percentage basis. I already posted that.
>Prohibiting crossposting all together doesn't work. Been there, done that.
Sure it does. It makes abuse more time-consuming for the abuser, which cuts
down its incidence.
>> Since there are 30,000+ newsgroups, this really doesn't prevent much
>> - other than a CONCENTRATED use of a remailer in one place - which
>> is, incidentally, the hallmark of those who abuse them!
>
>Its also the hallmark of those that USE them, although a significant percentage
>of remailer users also crosspost for legitimate purposes. My compromise on
>crossposting is to limit it to 5 groups.
Traffic limits don't stop legitimate users.
>> The above will make anonymous abuse disappear into the noise, but not
>> in any way significantly impact its use for legitimate purposes.
>
>As I have outlined above, some of the things you suggest are already in
>place, some of it will not work to prevent abuse and some of it WILL have
>SIGNIFICANT impact on legitimate use. Again, I'm not condoning abuse
>or defending it, I'm looking at the consequences of what you have outlined
>above as it related to the vast majority of posts that have legitimate
>purposes. I appreciate the comments, and if you look at my reply I think
>you will agree that what can be done about abuse, has been done.
I disagree.
>> I made no proposal to destroy ALL anonymous speech.
>
>Just relgate it to the back waters of the net, and throttle it down to 2-3
>posts a day.
No.
I made a proposal to target cancels at specific instances of abuse in
specific groups. Not to "destroy all anonymous speech".
Your penchant for hyperbole dilutes what validity you would otherwise have.
>> My proposal is to destroy "anonymous" speech that is:
>
>> 1. Sent to a specific set of groups, in this case those dealing
>> with divorce, dad's rights and certain regional group sets
>> that have been the "spill over" for these flame wars, all
>> conducted largely by abusers using anonymous remailers.
>
>Again, whats wrong with killfiles?
Again, what's wrong with throwing water on a fire?
>> AND
>
>> 2. Is sourced from one or more remailers that permit abusive
>> tactics to be employed - specifically, large numbers of postings
>> in a day to a single group or set of groups, cross-posted articles,
>> and those that permit tampering with headers (with cotse being one
>> of these sources.)
>
>cotse does not allow from: line forging if I remember correctly.
Yes it does.
>> Given the HUGE diversity of groups, this is not an operative limit for
>> LEGITIMATE users of the service (do you really source 60,000 articles a
>> day?) but INSTANTLY prevents someone from posting 20 articles a day to
>> one group (or set of groups) for the purposes of abuse.
>
>What if those 20 messages are not abuse?
Is this remailer for "high moral purpose" or not?
You keep dodging that - you claim that it is, but then define away your own
argument.
--
ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to
In alt.privacy.anon-server Kenneth Pangborn <kenpa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Leave no trail eh? Good luck.
>> How come the FBI can't catch the people cracking their systems? Are they
> cracking through remailers?
> Oh but the FBI has indeed nailed a bunch of them. Maybe you have missed
> recent "perp walks" with the 15 year old smartass in Canada?
> Or the guy they traced to the Phillipines. You'd like to THINK that they
> can't get caught. You know Steve, prisons in every country are FULL of
> smartasses who KNEW the law was WAY too stupid to ever catch them!
And the world is full of people that didn't get caught. I've seen hundreds
of them walk personally. For every one you see get caught, thousands never
get caught. Hell, we had over 1000 attacks a day on whitehouse.gov in 95,
and that was WAY before the script kiddies came on the scene.
- --
Shinn.net Anonymous Remailer Admin
PGP Key 1 ID: 0xD8D5B063 PGP Key 2 ID: 0x3C41F029
Key 1 fingerprint = C069 47E0 DF19 823F 2E34 393F 8A4E EC97
Key 2 fingerprint = A79A C4D7 F859 2F1D 26BE 5B34 9B34 0B29
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQEVAwUBOZQSwMQaFjc8QfApAQFPwwf9EmDLwZe4s4QYrZ6oQVGlIU39og4dtuFo
H+1iygv5pikG9CgylyRlKzXqKlvSB8ehIuCnhB0yT4l1sZ/CWRq2ABMuCvwplxmV
cuW7Fz3aFcfsG6w2VePGGwrOear2K4cFnw9Tt/e0scmmLkqKR750ENie1E6n4n2n
qrvAwmE6P/1ORBkaGxjVHHBfSem0g0JYWZ3uoUhxICooYYQYz25Hz85ePQwU/uuj
Q59SeztbRcJkt6BDddrOTDL1ME+lTQzcOGmyOkBy2xqvvwq5MqDYddA35TEby/ZF
1E4TZ7hLNtlp4HnyK0+9cxQRM2D5cku18SIhhOOw5O/rMMN7DdSiGQ==
=0uBG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Karl Denninger
Stephen K. Gielda <st...@cotseNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>In article <8n00gr$4qq$0...@pita.alt.net>, ka...@FS.Denninger.Net says...
>>
>>
>How come the FBI can't catch the people cracking their systems? Are they
>cracking through remailers?
Gee, who said they can't?
ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to
In alt.privacy.anon-server Kenneth Pangborn <kenpa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
>> What if its not possible to prevent all forms of, what you call, abuse?
> Then what?
> It is possible to prevent THIS form of abuse, however.
Please define "THIS". I really don't have the context of the form of abuse
you are referring to.
>> > Allowing people to plaster SOMEONE ELSE's moniker on a posting isn't an
> act of "anonymous posting." Its an act of constructive fraud and forgery,
> with you as a willing co-conspirator to the act.
>> NO ONE OWNS MONIKERS! Its not fraud to have the same name as someone
> else, and if you are too clueless to read the from: line in its entireity
> that is YOUR PROBLEM. I sign my posts so its clear that my words are mine,
> because I *KNOW BETTER* and so should you BTW.
> Perhaps in YOUR country people don't own there names. In America we DO!
I live in America too, and no you don't own your name. There can be two, twenty,
a thousand or more people that EXACT SAME NAME.
- --
Shinn.net Anonymous Remailer Admin
PGP Key 1 ID: 0xD8D5B063 PGP Key 2 ID: 0x3C41F029
Key 1 fingerprint = C069 47E0 DF19 823F 2E34 393F 8A4E EC97
Key 2 fingerprint = A79A C4D7 F859 2F1D 26BE 5B34 9B34 0B29
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQEVAwUBOZQTUMQaFjc8QfApAQFZSgf+NNFEavzF/oWvCVla3HJI0OMDB3rjQB91
aMfh3HmTRFDtfh8c079vPdBKXPEFBeoJe4Vuh0o1EXis0x9cQGCFzXGPFwdy/Ps0
3jnBIVr4hQJP8Deeo9aKgRk416pPv6iT7naoebi350HzXLwPNlXVvp4Q61x7GrS7
NyncZq3RtdX5n844lgTVMEFSaipuaz9QldHQc5Qc5zLAvIA9bxmxDLo7McxDTVvZ
pDo5B83OtgFbMFQe+D6DUAa/gy3FlJthGOgU/OvuXbScKSD2DKzmJR36CkyfdM74
J25/hFn+HHYJtGGnsyI0295FasNH+QbWE9KJjt3Ri1ucKLiFmr70/g==
=emn6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Karl Denninger
>> lives in the house, the phone line goes to that house, the call is
>> identified as coming from there and the computer's disk has traces on it
>> proving that it came from that keyboard, basic surveillance proves who was
>> on the machine at the time.
>
>Yes, OTHER MEANS might prove who was on the machine at the time, but what you
>have at the ISP does NOT prove guilt. Again, this bears repeated: ISP logs
>do not positively prove the case.
They're pretty damning evidence.
Of course they, ALONE, do not prove guilt. Very, very rarely does one
piece of evidence do that.
>ISP logs can help start an investigation, but they do, by themselves, prove
>the identity of the person. It much more complicated than you I think you
>are allowing it.
Not at all.
>> Then SOME abuse happens.
>
>Exactly my point. Some abuse WILL happen. It is not possible to prevent all
>abuse.
So what? Get rid of 90% of it and I'll be pretty happy.
>> But designing a system TO BE ABUSED is irresponsible.
>
>Sigh... my remailer and gateway, as with many others, were not designed to be
>ABUSED!
Yes they were.
>> So why not just set FROM to something that nobody can claim? Are you trying
>> to create an ANONYMOUS posting service or a way to have a CONVERSATION?
>
>Both.
The second is not necessary for an "anonymous" service. Your claim of "high
moral purpose" just went straight in the latrine.
>> In a civil suit its a preponderance of the evidence, and you'd lose.
>
>Again, I would not if I could prove it was NOT me.
Good luck proving a negative.
>> Leave no trail eh? Good luck.
>
>And remailers leave what trail exactly?
Ah, we're getting to the point, are't we?
>Sigh... you have WAY too much confidence in ISP logs.
No, I consider them business records, which may be in some cases good and in
some cases corrupt. Examination of them (and the motives of the people
involved) is necessary to determine which is the case, of course.
>> The instances I'm referring to here have all lacked digital signatures.
>> Try again.
>
>So? That doesn't mean an anonymous can not be aatributed to a person, which is
>what you keep going on about.
You keep changing the issues under discussion as you find that what you were
claiming doesn't fit the model.
That's an admission that you've lost the original argument.
Is that your intent?
> BTW, why don't you sign your messages? Do you
>want to have plausible deniability? As far as I am concerned, you like rather
>hypocritical going on about people needing to identify themselves, while you
>are hiding behind not signing your messages. Seems rather hypocritical to me.
Right now my PGP signature capability for posting isn't working for an
unknown reason. I don't generally sign posts, so why would it matter to me?
I thought this was a CHOICE, not a mandate?
If you'd like me to send you a signed message via EMAIL (which is working,
since I use that all the time and insist that it does, and fix problems I
find with it as necessary) I'm sure you know how to get a signed message
from me.
Karl Denninger
>>documentation in your own hands.
>>
>>Why is that Wilbur?
>
>The only documented liar that I have seen in this flame war has been Ken
>Pangborn.
>
>There have been numerous posts through various anonymous remailers
>attempting to claim to be David Moore, and I'm not particularly interested
>in trying to figure out the party, unless the posts can be verified.
>
>Wilbur
Uh, Wilbur, you got that "message" by EMAIL.
Remember?
Or is selective memory the operative word here?
Karl Denninger
Stephen K. Gielda <st...@cotseNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>> You're a hypocrite if you think freedom of speech only includes speech you
>> agree with. Perhaps you need to cogitate on the fact that nobody ever
>> bothers to try to ban speech that isn't offensive.
>>
>>
Not at all.
>To use your words, you are finally beginning to understand. But you
>should word it to be "nobody bothers to try to ban speech they don't view
>as offensive". Offensive is subjective.
I have always understood Steve.
It is you who think you have a right to demand that people only say what you
want them to say, and "don't listen to this bullshit" isn't one of the
"permitted" forms of speech in your paradigm.
Karl Denninger
>
>> agree with. Perhaps you need to cogitate on the fact that nobody ever
>> bothers to try to ban speech that isn't offensive.
>
>do not object to spending my OWN money to help propigate speech I do not
>agree with and clearly I understand the NEED for protecting offensive
>speech. No need to try and explain that to me, I pratice what I preach
>every single day and ask for nothing in return except that my rights not
>be abridged to speak my mind either.
Ah, so you ask in "return" that I not speak in certain ways.
Like asking others not to listen to you.
Got it. You're a hypocrite.
>>>>>The process to change the charter of a public newsgroup is known.
>>>>>Resurrecting the moderated newsgroup would remove the flame war from where
>>>>>most people would post..
>>>
>>>> Incorrect. It will not remove them from here, nor from any of the regional
>>>> groups.
>>>
>>>Sigh... and?
>
>> That's the point under debate, which you are intentionally ignoring.
>
>No, I'm not ignoring it. If you want a moderated newsgroup, go create one.
I don't need to moderate a group to make anonymous or remailed postings
off-limits.
Karl Denninger
Stephen K. Gielda <st...@cotseNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>> The problem here is that your systems permit wholesale abuse in that they
>> can consume significant percentages of the "discussions" going on.
>>
>>
>It takes two to do this. One trying to consume a group with posts
>through an anon remailer would be considered a flood and banned. In
>order for anonymous postings to take up the conversation on a newsgroup
>someone must reply.
Not relavent Steve.
Are you inviting someone to allege through one of these remailers (like
yours, perhaps) that you rape children and sodomize your dog, and expect
us to believe that you would consider this "not abusive"?
Karl Denninger
Dave Korn <no....@my.mailbox.invalid> wrote:
>Karl Denninger wrote in message <8mrv1d$nnd$0...@pita.alt.net>...
>[ in reply to Stephen K. Gielda]
>>Not relavent Stephen.
>>
>>Since these articles that eminate from cotse (like 300 said posts in a
>>couple of days) cannot be traced to a person, and in fact I could post
>>from cotse with that same FROM line and it would be impossible to verify,
>>it is therefore impossible for anyone to verify if a CANCEL for said
>>articles came from the original author or not.
>
> Actually it's very easy to verify:-
>
>Step 1: See post that has arrived through cotse. See that it has an
>email From: address that may or may not be real, and may or may
>not belong to the person.
>
>Step 2: Send mail to that address, referencing the article, and asking
>if the recipient of the email was indeed the author of the article.
>
>Step 3: Await reply.
>
> If you get back a reply saying "Yes, indeed that was me" then you
>have successfully verified that the email address is indeed real, and
>that it belongs to either the author of the article, or somebody who
>answers "yes" to any question they are asked.
Ah, I see.
Now what, pray tell, is the difference between that and posting from your
own account?
If you intend to take ownership of your words, the answer is: NOTHING!
> OTOH If *you* were to post through cotse with the same 'From'
>line as someone else, the email in Step 2. would be sent to *them*,
>not you, and so they would probably reply "No, that was not me".
>
> Easy.
Yep. Easy. And proof positive that in the instant case the remailer is of
no social value whatsoever. Therefore, such communication should not go
through it, since it does not serve its CLAIMED purpose in doing so.
Karl Denninger
Stephen K. Gielda <st...@cotseNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>> The end result is that the abuse stops and the weapons can be sheathed.
>>
>>
>I think you need to begin cancelling so you can test this theory. Or you
>could save yourself the time and hang in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet and
>see what happens in groups that are now cancelling just like this. They
>get worse, not better, all of them.
wi.* did eh?
Wrong. Flatly, positively, wrong.
--
ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to
In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
> In article <MqKk5.32$J....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>,
> <ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to> wrote:
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>>In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I do understand the legitimate need for anonymous posting services.
>>
>>I think you understand the need, but not the cost that society can not
>>help but incur to ensure anonymity. There is a cost, abuse, that is
>>simply non-trivial to solve.
> Completely solve? You're right, we can't completely fix the problem.
Excellent, so glad to hear you admit that.
> So what.
You have made suggestions to change the remailer network that in large
part would not reduce abuse significantly without seriously reducing
the utility of the system for legitimate users. Thats my point.
> Solve in the 90th percentile? Not tough at all.
Again, you're just pulling that number out of thin air. Where are you c
oming up these numbers, and then jumping to the conclusion that its not
touch to reach that goal?
> The last 10% of the problem always requires 90% of the effort. I don't
> propose that you solve the last 10% of the problem, only the larger (and
> easier) 90%.
Please elaborate on how you arrived at these numbers, and how you quantify
the capacity of a measure to reduce abuse. Its all fine and dandy to
wave arbitary numbers around and make grandious statements about how it
will be easy to reach some arbitrary goal, but its nothing more than a
gratuitous assertion at this point.
And please keep in mind that if it is possible to reduce abuse, without
significantly reducing utility for the legitimate users, then I will
glady do so.
>>The remailer community has and
>>continues to think long and hard about how to make remailers less and less
>>suceptible to abuse. The problem is that most of the time the cure is
>>worse than the disease.
> I disagree. I believe the remailer community acts not out of balance but
> out of spite in many cases, and in nearly all cases anonymous posting is not
> actually used for those "higher purposes".
In that, you are both wrong and ignorant. Before you jump to such conclusions,
you would do well to get to know some of the remops and do some more reading
of the various cypherpunk, remailer, free-speech, mixmaster and other mailing
lists. There are many thoughtful, careful and considerate people there and
elsewhere that are constantly discussing the issue of balancing the need for
freedom of speech with the desire to prevent its abuse. I have no desire to
see my remailer abused anymore than you do, but I have to be careful not to
reduce the utlity of the system to the point where it no longer useful for its
primary purpose: protecting speech.
> When you claim to be doing something for the "higher purpose", but 99% of
> the time its used for lower purposes, then something's wrong. You're either
> lying about why you're doing it, or you're doing it wrong.
Again, where are you coming up with this 99% figure?
> That much is
> obvious to anyone with an IQ that is better off than lukewarm.
Is it always necessary for you try and insult me? (Keep it up and I'm just
gonna stop listening altogether, and then where will you be? If you want
me to listen, then can the Ad Hominem.)
>>Only if the cure is not worse than the disease. You have to accept the
>>fact that not all speech can be stopped (or SHOULD be stopped) given the
>>incredibly broad definition of "abuse" when related to speech on the
>>internet - and lets call a spade a spade here.
> I always call spades what they are. If you know ANYTHING about me at all,
> you know this is the case.
I only know what I have gleened from chating with you over the last two days.
> The problem here is that your systems permit wholesale abuse in that they
> can consume significant percentages of the "discussions" going on.
Perhaps. Throttling is an ongoing debate in our community, and I have made
significant progress in creating modifications to the system that may help
mitigate some volume based issues (hashcash for instance).
> There's something very wrong with this. But its easily fixed, without
> "outing" the poster and without destroying the CLAIMED "high purpose"
> for these anonymous systems.
> (If that's why you're really running one)
That is exactly why I run one, the higher purposes. So, your solution to
this problem is limiting posts to 2-3 a day right?
Have you considered the problems your proposal?
>> Can you really say that and *KNOW* that you
>>will never be wrong?
> Does it matter?
Yes it does.
>>I think you will have to accept the fact that there is some level of
>>offensive speech you will will not be able to keep from reading.
> Well certainly. But not half of the content of a group, or more, all coming
> from these remailers.
So whats wrong with using a killfile again?
>>> 1. If your software was asked to send more than, oh, two postings in
>>> one day to any specific newsgroup that it would ban that group from
>>> further postings for 24 hours.
>>
>>Mine already throttles as best it can, however your limit is a bit too low to
>>allow for any sort of regular banter on usenet,
> Anonymous posting is not for "banter." You yourself said it isn't.
No I didn't.
> In
> fact, you defined some very good uses for it, none of which require "banter"
> and all, in fact, specifically exclude that.
What? How did I say that? I was pretty clear that I think anonymous posting
only does ONE THING, it protects the real identity of the sender. It does not
preclude bantering, or discussing or caring on a conversation because the send
CAN non-repuditate their posts, they CAN have a replyable address and they
can have an identity.
>> you also may be discounting
>>the fact that remailers chain messages.
> So what?
That makes it impossible to positively identify that these 2-3 messages came from
user A, and the next three messages came from a totally different user. In some
cases its impossible for the software to contextual sort the messages so that
each user gets their fair share. nyms can do this, but exit point remailers can
not.
>> Which means the output point does
>>not have any way of measuring context to know that the 100 messages it is
>>sending to one newsgroup came from 1 person, or 100 persons.
> Doesn't matter. Even an input point doesn't know this, since it is trivial
> to go through a redirector if you have a web-based submit system, and pretty
> easy even if you don't.
An input point is defined as the first hop, not the percieved first hop, and it
is possible to do input based filtering. Its not fool proof, and thanks for
making my point that what you ask for is simply not practical or possible.
> The point here is that *your* posting software should throttle posts to a
> single group to a very small number per day.
And the point here is that is not practical or fair to the legitimate users.
What should that number be? Should it vary for highly popular groups? How
do you manage context so you are unfairly punishing a legitimate user? How
do you prevent a DoS attack on the legitimate users, by getting the throttle
to trip erroniously? There are lots of other flaws in your model. It won't
work.
> Your choice as to whether
> you stack or discard when the limit is exceeded (pick your poison.) I'd
> frankly discard, assuming that the person sending is *probably* not using
> the remailer for one of those "high minded" purposes, but that's me.
And in many cases, you would be wrong - and thats also an important point
you are apparently dismissing out of hand.
>>The problem is more complex than I think you give it credit for. To try and
>>reduce the obvious case of flooding, my mail2news gateway looks at the content
>>of the message to determine if its a duplicate or if its too similiar to
>>a previous message before it sends it on - and keeps a hash table of this
>>information for months to further reduce UCE, Floods and obvious abuse. So,
>>in that context, some of what you ask for is already happening. As far as
>>putting an arbitrary limit on the number of posts to a newsgroup, I don't see
>>how that would work - since the context of the number of posts to allow is
>>not really available to the output remailer, since it doesn't know what "too
>>much" is for one newsgroup or one user.
> Doesn't matter. Two is enough.
Two is not enough and you clearly aren't listening to what I am saying. Please
read it again.
> More get stacked or tossed. Abusers leave,
> because they can't flood a newsgroup and drive off the legitimate users.
But they CAN drive of legitimate users by ensuring that they fill the stack every
day! Then no legitimate user can use that remailer to post to that group.
> Legitimate people who need to get the word out for one of those high-minded
> purposes still can do so.
No they can't.
> If the first attempt fails (disappears) they can
> always re-issue the post either tomorrow or to a different group.
Again, you are assuming someone will not deliberately try to trip the throttle or
that the group might not be really popular for anonymous posters with legitimate
purposes.
>>> 2. Prohibit crossposting entirely.
>>
>>I limit crossposts to 5 newsgroups. Prohibiting it seems excessive to me. You
>>crosspost, so why shouldn't an anonymous or pseudo-anonymous person be allowed
>>to do the same?
> Again, is this remailer for high moral purpose or not?
Yep. You assume that all crossposts have no higher purpose. You would be wrong.
>>> 3. Do not permit people to set the "FROM" header. It serves no purpose
>>> in an anonymous environment. Instead set it to a robot on your
>>> server that would reply with "the source is intentionally cloaked
>>> and no person can lay claim to the content represented in any
>>> message with this source address, as they have intentionally and
>>> willfully shielded their identity."
>>
>>My remailer and gateway does this now.
> Well, you got one of three.
> That's better than Cotse.
I don't think Cotse allows forged from: lines either.
- --
Shinn.net Anonymous Remailer Admin
PGP Key 1 ID: 0xD8D5B063 PGP Key 2 ID: 0x3C41F029
Key 1 fingerprint = C069 47E0 DF19 823F 2E34 393F 8A4E EC97
Key 2 fingerprint = A79A C4D7 F859 2F1D 26BE 5B34 9B34 0B29
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQEVAwUBOZQY9MQaFjc8QfApAQGpQQf/X51XGQQbOU7OQqBczlOAd2WRK9WRLVpG
ISCdrxog6YbD0XymjeiD/KYbM/tOUpaZIiXrl+i9eLXc8D6q3xbGca5AiInWa/bN
0EK5N3Fx3KxzOUWcZcvqz8XkxStP6KtGF57kssUhvQ1biEVkZwBLcfZp97yK1/jR
CAQ5FmeaNR+FOF496bQEH7EaZ7IC6uhuK5JgqE1RypjWMiwK3OseZ7GIdv45gsPX
AVdKCqTttnXG0LbpArawVHVu50gxSiNGoMFxt+Tm2/3d8cAN8TO4AzBSvwmu1i9u
ubuz+dLYtEuGP7jxZWJcyQ4Et8wWM3USpXtcpdspR3Dd3v24cxGw3w==
=giro
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Karl Denninger
Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
>ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger) wrote:
>
>>In article <3993361a....@news.monmouth.com>,
>>Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
>>>ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Not relavent Wilbur.
>>>
>>>Yes, it is quite relevant. Your attempts to claim that messages can be
>>>definatively sources are bunk. Your claims that the responsibility lies
>>>with the ISP to filter the world is bunk. You don't like a remailer, then
>>>KILLFILE it on your machine.
>>
>>Ah, but suggesting to others that they killfile it is not legitimate?
>
>You're not suggesting to me that I killfile, you're attempting to determine
>for me what IS killfiled.
Wrong again.
Go read how it works Wilbur. Hint: Try "private property rights".
You don't own the server you connect to, in all probability.
>>Why not Wilbur?
>
>See above.
Get your own feed then and ignore cancels. Buy the terabyte of disk and
system to handle it. Fork over $500,000 for the disk, systems and circuits
for a year's operation.
Then shut off cancels. You're the boss!
>Yeah, so why do you feel that you have to control the medium?
Pay the check or shut up.
Its not your call; your problem is that you don't like the fact that someone
ELSE can make this decision because it is THEIR computer, not yours.
>I see the anonymous flame wars as exactly the opposite. The peope that are
>making their financial fortunes off of the misfortune of fathers would seek
>to insure that this communications medium not be a source of fathers coming
>together, so that they can continue their fleecing of fathers.
Oh please. There is no such high-mindedness going on here.
>>And oh, by the way, remember that message you forwarded me about Moore
>>saying he was TAKING DOWN HIS KEN PANGBORN WEB PAGES? He has done NO SUCH
>>THING.
>
>Gee, you don't follow netiquette, now do you?
What netiquette is that, Wilbur? Paraphrasing someone's message is never
against the rules.
>I guess you missed that AOL pulled Ken's account, or why David said he was
>talking the pages down.
>
>>That is, he LIED to you Wilbur.
>
>Hardly, read the entire message that I sent you.
Yes, he lied. He said he was taking it down.
>>I checked it this afternoon.
>
>I'm thinking that I'm seeing a pattern here.
You've got blinders on - willful blindness doesn't count.
>I'm sorry that you mistake validity of content with being able to source a
>message. I'm sorry that you think that you desire to require everyone to
>post in your limited ways is freedom of speech.
You're the one arguing that I shouldn't post certain sequences of bytes
Wilbur.
>>How many times do you have to be lied to before it counts Wilbur?
>
>Lies don't count, that's the entire point.
I see. Got it.
>You have no
>proof that the anonymous posts where from Ken Pangborn, David Moore, or
>anyone else. If you are unable to determine and understand the nature of a
>message with no source, that's your problem.
Fine. Then I can ask that they be removed, and its my right to do so just
as it is my right to take anonymous messages off telephone poles.
>>Gee, they'll get killed too.
>
>Oh yeah, sure. Like they won't find a way to get around your bot.
Rotating shields and phaser frequencies. I like it.
>>So what? Now you want to dictate to ISPs what their level of customer
>>service and tolerance for people's bullshit is? What's next?
>
>I'm sorry that you don't understand the purpose of anonymous remailers.
>Get over it.
Oh, I do. I'm sorry that you're a hypocrite and only apply freedom of
speech to streams of bytes that you agree with.
>>I have the right to ask others to kill the message as well, since doing so
>>is a form of speech.
>
>Not for me you don't.
Sure I do, since you don't own the news server involved.
>.. and as I said, if you want to change the character of this UNMODERATED
>newsgroup, THEN CHANGE THE CHARTER.
Without said change, I'm free to issue my suggestions.
>Gee, the only one that has claimed that I'm a sock puppet for David Moore
>has been Ken Pangborn and crew. Why are you now claiming that. As I
>explained to you on the phone, I'm not supporting David Moore.
Yes you are.
You refuse to call him on his lie and hold him to his word, even when its
in your hand.
>>who is now a DOCUMENTED liar Wilbur
>
>I have not seen documentation that meets my standard of proof. Please
>provide me with a reference to something that meets your standards, and
>I'll determine for myself if it meets my standards.
Try the email you forwarded to me.
>>Or are you now going to tell me that the email which YOU forwarded to me,
>>purportedly by David Moore SAYING that he was going to pull down all his
>>Pangborn web page material, was forged?
>
>I suppose that you have missed that Ken Pangborn lost his AOL account, at
>least that's the accepted premise right now? Even as David Moore pointed
>out, we have no actual validation of that, other than someone posting out
>of Earthlink.
Which means, Wilbur, that the CLAIM that he was going to take them down
until he had proof of that was FALSE.
>>The pages are still up.
>>
>>He LIED.
>
>How do you know what I said in reply to him?
Why does it matter what you said in reply to him?
>But he's not allowed change his mind even though the motivations WHICH HE
>STATED are gone?
They are? You just said there was no evidence of that.
>Wilbur
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> Putting A Human Face On Technology ;-)
> --------------------------------------------
> Literally! http://www.TheFaceOf.com
Don't let his machine download that crap on this page.
You never know what might be in there.
ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to
In alt.privacy.anon-server Karl Denninger <ka...@fs.denninger.net> wrote:
> In article <szLk5.57$J....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>,
> <ad...@mixmaster.shinn.net.no.spam.to> wrote:
>>
>>> What's wrong about it?
>>
>>> Oh, I get it. Free speech only applies when its speech you AGREE with.
>>> When its not then by God, we have to call it wrong and try to BAN IT!
>>
>>I didn't call for a ban, I just called your actions morally repugnant.
>>Just because I agree with your right to say whatever you want does not
>>mean that I have to agree with the speech or condone its morality.
> Uh, you just got done calling what I intend to make easy for people
> something that was CENSORSHIP and by implication worthy of a ban......
> (in a different post, natch, but indeed you did)
I did not call for a ban, I say I found your threat to be morally
repugnant. Stop trying to put words into my mouth.
>>I find nothing wrong with the suggestion, but I also do not see any postive
>>ethical value in making it easier for people to cancel posts. Do you see
>>some ethical postive here that I don't?
> Ah, progress!
> We're now down to a debate of ethical values. This is progress indeed.
When did I ever approach this any other way? Afterall, I'm the person running
the remailer here and you're the person railing against it.
> Yes, I do see a positive value for the vast majority of users in the groups
> that get innudated with this abuse. The group(s) subject to this will
> change from time to time.
And killfiles are not effective in this regard because?
> It is, in many ways, a matter of detente. The presence of such a tool
> in the hands of many may well prevent the abuse in the first place, without
> it having to be used (much anyway; I suspect at least one proof that it
> exists and works will be necesary.)
It will just force all newsservers to cease accepting cancels altogether.
> Its like Old Russia .vs. the US. We both know we can nuke each other to
> Mars, and as a consequence neither of us was likely to unleash our weaponry.
> Why? The consequences suck for both sides.
But you dismissing another side in this case, the nasty little script kiddies
that will get their jollies canceling every ad hoc just to prove they can.
I think all you will accomplish is making cancels useless in usenet if your
tool gains widespread use.
- --
Shinn.net Anonymous Remailer Admin
PGP Key 1 ID: 0xD8D5B063 PGP Key 2 ID: 0x3C41F029
Key 1 fingerprint = C069 47E0 DF19 823F 2E34 393F 8A4E EC97
Key 2 fingerprint = A79A C4D7 F859 2F1D 26BE 5B34 9B34 0B29
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQEVAwUBOZQbvMQaFjc8QfApAQHztQgAjXWkKfsGsOJUJXGOumGm/ar66Y0pL90U
Z3o3bXJyXtzk4QoGfWzBiTT1/KnxkyIACPdXxcnTIXvEHjYfGGX58PFV9w3+i5f9
ABHvjp7R1NSoVvXDYoAfM2tffumvt+uqPF1WFQX6Bf8ZogXvzotfyGvmvzZtjMjz
O4g9roHPZoRLuSpFNJWNw0pDcWALQIdEKaA5D05pFAK1lt+TOhctnwvePWVm5uup
VqwTY73ebmlziKYiIKMt2rnVd6fKl4o4vHPqz3oD2qswOOdIZRCyoq80/d7GTtXx
G33dH+MCmvuhW/0lm3FF5uqtwUxDJGk5bv68hNdckAlDBIPH73/qLQ==
=YFoL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----