Nowhere9 Bryan Lang in trouble again
freedom
restraining order which stated that he was to stay away from his
ex-wife and child. Lang was intoxicated, according to the police
report, and was yelling at his ex and his child.
This stems from the case earlier this year, in which the restraining
order was issued. During an argument last year, Lang had thrown a
punch at his wife but ended up hitting his child instead.
Karl Denninger
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?
--
--
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
>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?
How about just resurrecting the moderated group.. and the problem is gone.
Wilbur
--------------------------------------------
Putting A Human Face On Technology ;-)
--------------------------------------------
Literally! http://www.monmouth.com/~wstreett/FaceIT/
PangK
>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, alt.support.domestic-violence,
>az.general, az.jobs
>
>Bryan Lang had another run-in with the law. He violated the
>restraining order which stated that he was to stay away from his
>ex-wife and child
And WIlbur Streett will claim to have a VIDEO, film at 11..
PangK
>From: WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett)
>How about just resurrecting the moderated group.. and the problem is gone.
>
WITH, of course WILBUR STEETT as MODERATOR.....
Karl Denninger
>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?
>
>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.
Now we'll see if any of you have the balls to install and operate it.
BL
>Bryan Lang had another run-in with the law. He violated the
>restraining order which stated that he was to stay away from his
>ex-wife and child. Lang was intoxicated, according to the police
>report, and was yelling at his ex and his child.
>
>This stems from the case earlier this year, in which the restraining
>order was issued. During an argument last year, Lang had thrown a
>punch at his wife but ended up hitting his child instead.
>
SO post the FULL report in a JPG scanned file! I am calling your
BLUFF! You have NOTHING on me! You are pissed that I have
called you on you bluff, and are responding in your TYPICAL way!
Put it up on your ANET site for ALL to see, that is if you REALLY
have what you claim and have the GUTS to do so! But I need not
worry because you have NOTHING and are completely GUTLESS!
When you KNOW you are caught in a LIE, you spread MOORE
LIES about your marks! You are still a chicken-shit yellowbelly
coward of a WANNABE Marine!
Karl Denninger
>In article <8mmp09$f3n$0...@dosa.alt.net>,
>>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.
>>
>>Now we'll see if any of you have the balls to install and operate it.
>
>won't allow it. And there is one (that uses clean feed) that may do it,
>provided its a group consensus.
The software is really quite trivial. Here's pseudocode:
1. For each group in list
a. Enter group ("group xxxx" command)
a. Request new article count since last check.
b. Retrieve each header ("head ###" command)
c. Scan each returned header for tags indicating a remailer.
d. If a remailer is detected;
1. Connect back to news server on a second socket.
2. Send "POST"
3. Transmit a pre-formed article with the added header
"Control: CMSG CANCEL <xxxxxx>" to the original
group, copying the original FROM line and subject,
appending "-robocancel" to the original message ID,
and including the original message ID in the "xxxxx"
field above.
4. Close posting connection.
That's it.
Trivial stuff, and low bandwidth (since you only need the headers) besides.
Also totally content-transparent, since you only retrieve the headers - you
don't even look at the body of the message.
If it comes from a remailer, it gets cancelled. Period.
Clean-news analyzed the message body to determine if the message was binary
in content and was NOT PGP-signed by a registered key.
This is much simpler, lower-impact, and will absolutely work.
Politically it will cause hell on earth instantly when turned on, so you
need a news admin at your site that is in agreement with the process and
implementation and will back your use. Since this design can be limited
to specific groups "permission" from an admin with brass balls (he'll need
it) should be possible to obtain.
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.
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.
PangK
>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,
az.general, news.admin.censorship
(Karl, Moore is a neighbor of yours)
>In article <LO99KDM13674...@nuther-planet.net>,
> <fathers...@dragoncon.net>
>>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.
Seems like you have Moore nailed Karl.
>>Or is the censorship only going to be selective?
>Quit posting from remailers and your problem will disappear.
Naw, Karl, he knowns that when he posts from a LEGIT ISP he gets kicked off
for his abuse.
>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 think you insulted the cat family there Karl.
>I bet the crap drops by 90% within a day of this software going online.
>
Probably so but the whining and CRYING will increase by 99999999999999%
Moore STILL bitches that they used a robocancel on ALL anonymous posts in
milwaukee General which effectively silenced HIM!
POOR BABY!
Mo wino
>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.
Gee, this from the putz that periodically brags about cancelling posts. Your
argument has no merit since you have none.
>Granted, many of the major ISPs don't even accept cancels, but
>can't something be done about such blatant censorship?
>
Yes! I suggest applause! Of course, the same ISP's that ignore your pitiful
attempts at cancels will probably ignore his too. But the effort should be
applauded!
>They've sent over 300 complaints to my ISP in an effort to have my father's
>rights web pages
>pulled.
Actually, I think its your libelous attacks on various individuals that people
want pulled, as they were repeatedly until you landed on Anet. Just as you've
threatened legal action on O'Connor's page, without doing anything because you
know the laughter you would face in court. So your argument is?
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..
Wilbur Streett
>Actually, I think its your libelous attacks on various individuals that people
>want pulled, as they were repeatedly until you landed on Anet. Just as you've
>threatened legal action on O'Connor's page, without doing anything because you
>know the laughter you would face in court. So your argument is?
He's got it on his web page.
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.
Kenneth Pangborn
Mo wino <mow...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000808153834...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
> >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.
> Gee, this from the putz that periodically brags about cancelling posts.
Your argument has no merit since you have none.
> >They've sent over 300 complaints to my ISP in an effort to have my
father's rights web pages pulled.
David, nobody on this planet gives a hoot about your father's rights web
pages. Your libel is another story.
After 4 years of trying Moore finally got my AOL account. What for?
Nailing an ANET official for lying to protect Moore.
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.
Wilbur Streett
ROTFLMAO..
So you are trying to claim that AOL canceled your account when you told the
truth?
When was that?
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-rights
<kenpa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Mo wino <mow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000808153834...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
>> >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.
>
>> Gee, this from the putz that periodically brags about cancelling posts.
>Your argument has no merit since you have none.
>
>> >They've sent over 300 complaints to my ISP in an effort to have my
>father's rights web pages pulled.
>
> David, nobody on this planet gives a hoot about your father's rights web
>pages. Your libel is another story.
>
> After 4 years of trying Moore finally got my AOL account. What for?
>Nailing an ANET official for lying to protect Moore.
Actually it was for two years of defamation and lies. Seems AOL
investigated your claims about my military service record and my
divorce (with my permission) and found them to be false. Thus, they
booted your ass.
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
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.
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:3990d3f6....@news.monmouth.com...
> "Kenneth Pangborn" <kenpa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Mo wino <mow...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20000808153834...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
> >> >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.
> >> Gee, this from the putz that periodically brags about cancelling posts.
Your argument has no merit since you have none.
> >> >They've sent over 300 complaints to my ISP in an effort to have my
father's rights web pages pulled.
> > David, nobody on this planet gives a hoot about your father's rights
web pages. Your libel is another story.
> > After 4 years of trying Moore finally got my AOL account. What for?
Nailing an ANET official for lying to protect Moore.
> ROTFLMAO..
> So you are trying to claim that AOL canceled your account when you told
the truth?
I think they were embarassed that I had so publicly taken on the head of
ANET for, well, fibbing when he denied Moore was or ever had been a user.
Denied to people that Moore's website was there. And they responded to
Moore's whining about being picked on and "harassed" the poor little thing.
Kenneth Pangborn
news:b8410de47a9dd732...@mixmaster.shinn.net...
> On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 02:37:54 GMT "Kenneth Pangborn"
> <kenpa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Mo wino <mow...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20000808153834...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
> >> >They've sent over 300 complaints to my ISP in an effort to have my
father's rights web pages pulled.
>
> > David, nobody on this planet gives a hoot about your father's rights
web pages. Your libel is another story.
> > After 4 years of trying Moore finally got my AOL account. What for?
Nailing an ANET official for lying to protect Moore.
> Actually it was for two years of defamation and lies. Seems AOL
investigated your claims about my military service record and my
divorce (with my permission) and found them to be false. Thus, they
booted your ass
No David, in specific they didn't like the reference to your photo on
the Gigantor website. My, isn't that interesting. They felt a reference to a
REAL photo of you was "harassment" but that your distorted photo you claim
to be of me is NOT. Well, ANET says it is not. ANET seems to approve of
invitations to rape people's wives and minor children. AOL didn't! For
whatever, AOL has shown it has FAR more class than ANET. Unlike ANET AOL
will enforce it's TOS even when it is unfair to its users.
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.
IrishRs711
>From: Stephen K. Gielda st...@cotseNOSPAM.com
>Newsgroups: alt.privacy.anon-server, news.admin.censorship,
>alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 11:23:00 -0400
>Organization: Cotse
>Lines: 26
>Message-ID: <MPG.13fb41569...@news.supernews.com>
>References: <2000080818...@anon.cotse.com>
><KC9k5.243$y%4.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>X-Complaints-To: news...@supernews.com
>X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.30.1784
>Xref: lobby alt.privacy.anon-server:57416 news.admin.censorship:90645
>alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:71337
>
>
>
>In article <KC9k5.243$y%4.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>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.
>>
>>
>Yes he does. He occasionally posts from cotse, you can see our abuse
>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?
>
>
>
Through anonymous remailers, "Father's Rights", under other aliases, sent me
emails threatening my life and that of my children. He threatened to torture my
children in front of me. Complaints were made to the various remailers directly
and through aol but he's still using the remailers to harass myself and my
family without any fear of legal reprisal. He has posted forgeries from myself
and my minor child expressing rape and snuff fantasies complete with an address
to "come get us". The remailers did nothing about the complaints.
He has used remailers to claim I actually traveled to HIS home to harass him
(Chicago in the winter, I don't THINK so), he has used remailers to claim that
I spent time in jail for abusing my children, he has used remailers to claim I
am a runaway mother on the lam who has abducted my children and tried to
solicit help in finding and harassing me. He has used remailers to forge
allegations from me that my mother sexually abused and tortured me. He has used
remailers to accuse me of doing the harassment that he himself is guilty of.
Through remailers.
He claims the disagreements he has with others are to do with his father's
rights website, something no one cares about. That is what really angers him.
No one seriously considers him a proponent of any father's rights other than
his own. So far as I know there has NEVER been any complaint about any of the
father's rights content on his site at it's various homes. I have seen
legitimate complaints made by those he has targeted about the libel he has
published on his sites but never a complaint about his basic "father's rights"
information. The libel has been recognized by several of the hosting services
that have pulled the pages that were meant only to harass.
For over two years this animal has used remailers to harass, bully, intimidate,
defame and extort myself and others for the simple crime of calling him the
sociopath he is. For this he has promised to pursue his revenge until the
ultimate revenge, death. He forged material as being from Ken Pangborn directed
towards an emotionally fragile woman in the grief support group. She tried to
commit suicide. These forgeries were done through anonymous remailers.
Jesus, this is not the first time you remailer operators have had reports of
abuse of your services by David Moore. After several years of the same
pattern, people disagreeing with Moore and then the anonymous harassment they
then suffer, I'd think you all would get a damn clue.
I used to think that remailers had at least some legitimate function, to
provide a venue for the expression of politically unpopular opinion, to perhaps
allow a communist Chinese citizen or Afghanistan woman the ability to inform
the world of the dangers they face without facing a death sentence in return.
To allow consenting adults to discuss unpopular sexual proclivities without
worrying that the boss would see and terminate their jobs.
But your services seem to more often be used to allow criminal threats and
harassment, not OPINION and I do not understand why you do not help nail this
bastard for his crimes. Threatening to disembowel children is NOT free speech
it is a criminal threat.
Posing as a child and claiming to want anal sex partners and giving that childs
address to be visited is NOT free speech it is criminal harassment.
Is this what you all intended when you started your services? Are you also of
a criminal mind that you find no moral revulsion at the thought that you enable
this? How do you look at the women and children in your lives and not feel
guilty that you are helping to endanger the women and children in someone
else's life?
Why don't you people actually look at a couple of those posts that are coming
from Moore through your systems. And then be honest about whether you feel he
is just exercising his right to free speech (incidentally that is what I was
doing when he decided to try to harass me into silence. So much for his real
adherence to the principle) or if he is actually using your services as a
screen to avoid reprisal for his criminal and morally reprehensible activity.
I truly believe that if successful legislation shutting down remailers is ever
passed it will be in no small part due to the use that Moore has made of the
remailers and the indifference to that use that the remailer operators have
exhibited.
And guess what, as a result of this exercise of MY free speech I can expect to
see further harassment of myself and my children in various sex groups, etc. I
can expect further defamatory claims that I've been in jail or abused my child
or whatever his insane, fertile imagination is in the mood for at the time. But
I am sick and tired of being extorted into silence. Where the hell are my
fourth amendment rights? Are they only valid if I use a remailer?
Judith McLinn
You want my address? Hell, just look in the archives to see how many times
it's been posted to usenet through how many remailers.
Here is one of the more mild examples of Moore's use of the remailers. This one
didn't appear to come through cotse though others have. I have not been in jail
but he has posted so on newsgroups and I believe had a couple of active posts
claiming the same thing at about the time he sent this. And somehow, in light
of other emails and newsgroup posts, I do not think the promised trip to
California was for a social visit.
Subj:
Date: 5/28/00 4:55:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: nob...@remailer.ch (Anonymous)
To: irish...@aol.com
Subject: my little pretty...
Don't think we've forgotten about you. A trip to CA is planned in the not
too distant future, don't worry.
To your credit, at least you've kept your mouth shut for a few months.
Most of which, granted, you've been in and out of jail...
----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path: <nob...@remailer.ch>
Received: from rly-za03.mx.aol.com (rly-za03.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.99]) by
air-za03.mail.aol.com (v73.13) with ESMTP; Sun, 28 May 2000 19:55:47 -0400
Received: from hades.rpini.com (hades.rpini.com [212.45.194.51]) by
rly-za03.mx.aol.com (v74.10) with ESMTP; Sun, 28 May 2000 19:55:20 -0400
Date: 28 May 2000 23:55:07 -0000
Message-ID: <2000052823550...@hades.rpini.com>
From: Anonymous <nob...@remailer.ch>
Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above.
It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software.
Please report problems or inappropriate use to the
remailer administrator at <ad...@remailer.ch>.
To: irish...@aol.com
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
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
fathers-rights
> (various unfounded, false allegations snipped)
OK, idiot... if it was through "anonymous" remailers, then how are you
able to say that it was me?
cc: ab...@aol.com
RealFreedom
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 08:42:45 -0400, fathers-rights
<anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net> wrote:
>>
>>Through anonymous remailers, "Father's Rights",
>>under other aliases, sent me emails threatening my
>>life and that of my children. He threatened to
>
>OK, idiot... if it was through "anonymous" remailers,
>then how are you able to say that it was me?
And here he reveals his reason for using the
remailers. He does not disupute that it is libelous
harassment, but wants only to disupute whether or not
it is proof. More than coincidentally, each one of
his "marks" experienced the same harassment. It
becomes like a signature. Of course there are also
logs of his IM messages. I don't think he should have
the right to complain to other people's ISPs when your
MO is to harass people and hide so they cannot
complain.
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.
Karl Denninger
fathers-rights <anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net> wrote:
>On 10 Aug 2000 07:45:30 GMT irish...@aol.com (IrishRs711) wrote:
>>>
>>
>>emails threatening my life and that of my children. He threatened to
>
>OK, idiot... if it was through "anonymous" remailers, then how are you
>able to say that it was me?
>
How are you able to say it wasn't, since "you" is by definition an open set
(and thus must include ALL THOSE WHO USE THEM) through those remailers.
Karl Denninger
This "I wrote that" stuff from so-called anonymous remailers is a load of
bunk.
If those people were willing to take responsibility for their words, they
would post from their own accounts.
They are not willing to do so, which is proven by their use of these
remailers.
To then claim that they wrote it is high hypocrisy.
Oh well, the code work is in progress. Soon it will be available to anyone
who wants it and has the gonads to use it.
--
--
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 <20000810034530...@ng-me1.aol.com>,
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.
Wilbur Streett
Cotse already documented that they maintain the source..
Wilbur
"RealFreedom" <anon...@cotse.com> wrote:
>
>On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 08:42:45 -0400, fathers-rights
><anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Through anonymous remailers, "Father's Rights",
>>>under other aliases, sent me emails threatening my
>>>life and that of my children. He threatened to
>>> (various unfounded, false allegations snipped)
>>
>>OK, idiot... if it was through "anonymous" remailers,
>>then how are you able to say that it was me?
>
>And here he reveals his reason for using the
>remailers. He does not disupute that it is libelous
>harassment, but wants only to disupute whether or not
>it is proof. More than coincidentally, each one of
>his "marks" experienced the same harassment. It
>becomes like a signature. Of course there are also
>logs of his IM messages. I don't think he should have
>the right to complain to other people's ISPs when your
>MO is to harass people and hide so they cannot
>complain.
>
>
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
Wilbur Streett
>That is exactly the point.
>
>This "I wrote that" stuff from so-called anonymous remailers is a load of
>bunk.
>
>If those people were willing to take responsibility for their words, they
>would post from their own accounts.
So when have you stood up in family court and called them criminals, and
accepted the jail time for contempt?
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?
Karl Denninger
>>
>>This "I wrote that" stuff from so-called anonymous remailers is a load of
>>bunk.
>>
>>If those people were willing to take responsibility for their words, they
>>would post from their own accounts.
>
>accepted the jail time for contempt?
More irrelavancies.
Give it up Wilbur. You can't shift the debate to suit your own desires.
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!