From: angels@wavenet.com (Colin Gabriel Hatcher) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Batman on the Internet??? CyberAngels info Date: 10 May 1996 04:57:04 GMT Organization: CyberAngels Lines: 44 Message-ID: References: <4mbb5p$fh5@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <4md8ds$8p@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <4mdh9d$l0k@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <4mh17e$sme@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> In article <4mh17e$sme@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, sethf@mit.edu wrote: > In article <4mdh9d$l0k@Networking.Stanford.EDU> rich@c2.org (Rich Graves) writes: > >sethf@mit.edu writes: > >>In article <4mbb5p$fh5@Networking.Stanford.EDU> rich@c2.org (Rich Graves) writes: > >>>The other two substantive responses were blocked from reaching the ... > >> > >> Correction: One response of questionable quality and possibly ... > > > >Oh, I didn't mean THOSE two; the adjective "substantive" was intentional > >and exclusive. I meant the other two, like Gabriel's direct response to > >your last message. > > Sigh, let's take this to e-mail, and try to straighten it all out. > I sure didn't get that response from Cc: or To: line. > > >Yeah, pity he's too busy to defend himself. I hope *somebody* can stop > >by; the CyberAngels say they favor free speech and open debate, after > >all. I'd hate to think he's decided that net users aren't worth talking to. IMHO the only people not worth talking to are rude people. That thread is getting complicated isn't it? > > He was getting pinned down pretty good on fight-censorship. I > hear he's doing worse in terms of reaction on cyberpunks. I wonder if > he's trolling himself, looking for some stuff he can use as "See how > evil these Internet denizens are, look how they attack our pure and > moral mission." Pinned down? Dream on gentlemen. Pinned down on what? You mean there was some question that I refused to answer? Or that I got tongue tied? Or so embarrassed that I ran away weeping? Or that I closed down the CyberAngels and joined AOL.Sucks? Or is this jibe simply a way of getting me to post to this group? Hmmm, I fell right into your trap! :) If you have something on your mind, please feel free to ask away. Gabriel From: sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship Subject: Re: Batman on the Internet??? CyberAngels info Date: 16 May 1996 20:07:54 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 76 Message-ID: <4ng1uq$ofm@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> References: <4mdh9d$l0k@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <4mh17e$sme@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Reply-To: sethf@mit.edu In article angels@wavenet.com (Colin Gabriel Hatcher) writes: >In article <4mh17e$sme@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, sethf@mit.edu wrote: >> He was getting pinned down pretty good on fight-censorship. I >> hear he's doing worse in terms of reaction on cyberpunks. I wonder if >> he's trolling himself, looking for some stuff he can use as "See how >> evil these Internet denizens are, look how they attack our pure and >> moral mission." > >Pinned down? Dream on gentlemen. Pinned down on what? The fact that you're going into very contested "political" territory, not just "criminal" patrolling as you like to portray yourself. That you are in fact attempting to impose some sort of organizational value system, through means which are legal, but contain a heavy component of puffed-up posturing and publicity-seeking. Once this is revealed, you can no longer claim to be some sort of helpful auxilliary, but are exposed as simply another censorship lobbying group, no different from the Moral Majority or the America Family Association. As came out very clearly in the ensuing discussion, the tactics used are very similar, the bait and switch of waving "child pornography" to try to paralyze opposition, then putting in all sorts of highly dubious and debatable other propositions under the rubric of Protect The Children. This was exceedingly clear in the debate over how to treat rating the archive of the "fight-censorship" list, which is hardly a threat to the safety of anyone but censors. > You mean there was some question that I refused to answer? Well, I still want a copy of your organization's "guidelines" or "training" or whatever you call them, for my collection (Labeling: http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/labeling/summary.html). You kept talking about how you use SafeSurf's stuff, but when I couldn't find what you said you used, I never got a reply. > Or that I got tongue tied? Or so embarrassed that I ran away weeping? > Or that I closed down the CyberAngels and joined AOL.Sucks? Or is this > jibe simply a way of getting me to post to this group? I'll be charitable, maybe this is just an artifact of the big tangle the discussion got into on the fight-censorship mailing list. We can straighten it out here. If you wrote a reply you think I didn't see, feel free to post it. >Hmmm, I fell right into your trap! :) > >If you have something on your mind, please feel free to ask away. > >Gabriel Plenty. 1) I still want a copy of your procedure for deciding do something/nothing. 2) SafeSurf made some statements that implied that they were giving CyberAngels the SafeSurf database of rated sites, to aid your efforts. Is this true? (would they give me the same database? I guess I should ask them, but let me know what you know about it, maybe there's some confusion about whether CyberAngels has an exclusive deal) 3) In the fight-censorship discussion, we were talking about how to rate the fight-censorship archive (http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/top/). Everyone should learn about censorship, from the earliest ages. The archive is not a porn shop. So the owner (Declan) SafeSurf-rated it as "All Ages", no "theme" of among those listed (the "theme" is fighting censorship, not sex drugs, etc). You disageed about this. a) What sort of SafeSurf ratings did *you* think it should get? b) What sort of SafeSurf rating is considered OK for it by CyberAngels (does a == b?) c) Did you do to the fight-censorship archive whatever it is you do to naughty sites? And what happens then (or is this still in process?). That should suffice for now. Thanks in advance for your answers. -- Seth Finkelstein sethf@mit.edu Disclaimer : I am not the Lorax. I speak only for myself. (and certainly not for Project Athena, MIT, or anyone else). From: "Declan B. McCullagh" Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Batman on the Internet??? CyberAngels info Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 23:47:33 -0400 Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 21 Message-ID: <0lazPJO00YUzQmu4Et@andrew.cmu.edu> References: <4mdh9d$l0k@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <4mh17e$sme@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <4ng1uq$ofm@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> In-Reply-To: <4ng1uq$ofm@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Excerpts from netnews.comp.org.eff.talk: 16-May-96 Re: Batman on the Internet?.. by Seth Finkelstein@athena. > >> He was getting pinned down pretty good on fight-censorship. I > >> hear he's doing worse in terms of reaction on cyberpunks. I wonder if > >> he's trolling himself, looking for some stuff he can use as "See how > >> evil these Internet denizens are, look how they attack our pure and > >> moral mission." Gabriel fled cypherpunks when he was faced with intransigent opposition. Perhaps fled is the wrong word. Perhaps stopped posting is a better phrase. One way or another, he ain't there now. It's been almost a month, and I still want to know if Gabriel is going to turn me in for rating fight-censorship as suitable for all ages. And I still want to be a cyberseraphim. (Cypherseraphim?) Gab told me I couldn't be one, since I don't think the Correct Way or somesuch. -Declan From: mudge@asimov.oit.umass.edu (Miskatonic Gryn) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Batman on the Internet??? CyberAngels info Date: 10 May 1996 15:35:25 -0400 Organization: The Rats in the Walls Lines: 12 Message-ID: <4n05pt$8bu@asimov.oit.umass.edu> References: <4mbb5p$fh5@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <4mdh9d$l0k@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <4mh17e$sme@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> In article , Colin Gabriel Hatcher wrote: >If you have something on your mind, please feel free to ask away. Just one question: Why should we trust you? - Gryn "What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." --Salman Rushdie From: angels@wavenet.com (Colin Gabriel Hatcher) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Batman on the Internet??? CyberAngels info Date: 15 May 1996 06:08:49 GMT Organization: CyberAngels Lines: 41 Message-ID: References: <4mbb5p$fh5@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <4mdh9d$l0k@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <4mh17e$sme@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <4n05pt$8bu@asimov.oit.umass.edu> In article <4n05pt$8bu@asimov.oit.umass.edu>, mudge@asimov.oit.umass.edu (Miskatonic Gryn) wrote: > Just one question: Why should we trust you? Why do you need to "trust" me? Trust me with what? I am an individual using the Net and as such have the same rights and restraints as you do. I am not asking that anyone trusts me with anything. I am doing what I believe is a good and right thing, by organizing CyberAngels, and anyone who agrees with me can join in or support it. Anyone who doesn't agree is of course free to criticize. Where does trust come into it? I am not wielding mighty power - I have one voice like you do. You should not after all trust anyone you don't know. You can judge me by my actions. CyberAngels is one year old in a couple of weeks - and I believe our track record speaks for itself. We have not gone around flaming, mail-bombing or otherwise harassing innocent people (unlike some of my critics), but have worked quietly and effectively to bring a significant number of people to justice - namely those who trade child pornography through the Usenet or the IRC. This has been done in cooperation with FBI or US Customs, or other Federal authorities around the world. Internet crimes continue, and it is and has always been a red herring to mix that up with the free speech issue. Child pornographers *do not* have and never have had the right to trade pictures of abused minors through the medium of the Internet. CyberAngels are people who decided not to turn a blind eye to it. Rather than focus on the erosion of our civil rights by government censorship, we chose instead to focus on the criminal acivities in some of the binaries newsgroups. The EFF has done a great job so far in fighting for Internet free speech. That is not our focus. You do not have to trust my judgement because I am simply exercising my right to ask questions about things I see that I don't like. You have the same right and I hope you are using it. Gabriel From: ram@mbisgi.umd.edu (Ram Samudrala) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Batman on the Internet??? CyberAngels info Date: 15 May 1996 22:57:50 GMT Organization: The Centre for Advanced Research in Biotechnology Lines: 34 Message-ID: <4ndnhe$bqv@hecate.umd.edu> References: <4mbb5p$fh5@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <4mdh9d$l0k@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <4mh17e$sme@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <4n05pt$8bu@asimov.oit.umass.edu> Reply-To: me@ram.org Colin Gabriel Hatcher (angels@wavenet.com) wrote: >Why do you need to "trust" me? Trust me with what? I am an >individual using the Net and as such have the same rights and >restraints as you do. I am not asking that anyone trusts me with >anything. I am doing what I believe is a good and right thing... This could be dangerous, especially if what you do affects more than yourself. But that's besides the point. I have a question for you: >namely those who trade child pornography through the Usenet or the >IRC. This has been done in cooperation with FBI or US Customs, or >other Federal authorities around the world. I have one question: let's say you succeed so well that the child pornographers now start using encryption and/or one-way anonymous remailers to completely hide their activities. Let's say you even suceeded in getting all ISPs to carry alt.sex.pedophilia, but people start posting child pornography to groups like comp.org.eff.talk encrypted, and via a one-way anonymous remailer (so it's basically impossible to track them down) and traded pictures this way, what would you do? In particularly, since encryption and anonymous remailers are being used to spread child pornography, would you put encryption software writers and anonymous remailer service providers in the same boat as child pornographers? --Ram me@ram.org || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th And the strange flavour of AI work is that people try to put together long sets of rules in strict formalisms which tell inflexible machines how to be flexible. ---Douglas Hofstadter From: ram@mbisgi.umd.edu (Ram Samudrala) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Batman on the Internet??? CyberAngels info Date: 3 May 1996 01:38:55 GMT Organization: The Centre for Advanced Research in Biotechnology Lines: 30 Message-ID: <4mbo3f$dn7@hecate.umd.edu> References: <0ef_9605021349@ima.infomail.com> Reply-To: me@ram.org I am not sure who it is I dislike more: the groups you put down in your post, or you and your self-righteous attittude. Today it's child porn. Tomorrow it's porn in general. The day after, it's anything that's offensive to you. Today it's racist organisations. The day after, it's anything you disapprove of. Perhaps better than spoon-feeding people you should spend more time educating them so they can it themselves (I realise you're doing this, but you're also doing other things). If you're really a group of people who want to help, and not a bunch of power-hungry zealots, that is. >We don't believe in the philosophy that "anything goes" on the Net. That's the way it is, regardless of whether you like it or not. I hope someday your "movement" won't be the one that asks for a ban on cryptography and anonymous mailers because you can't control what they do. >The Internet is a society and in societies where "anything goes" then >crime and violence dominate, and the stronger consume the weaker. I take it you have non-standard definitions of violence and strength. --Ram me@ram.org || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th Annihilation, kill 'em all! Capitulation, watch the mighty fall. The road to glory is lined in red, and the reason now is gone... the battle rages on! ---Deep Purple From: Allen Ethridge Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Batman on the Internet??? CyberAngels info Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 11:16:08 -0500 Organization: Bell-Northern Research Lines: 24 Message-ID: <318A3148.78D5@bnr.ca> References: <0ef_9605021349@ima.infomail.com> <4mbo3f$dn7@hecate.umd.edu> <4mbu1b$h0k@Networking.Stanford.EDU> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Richard Charles Graves wrote: > In article <4mbo3f$dn7@hecate.umd.edu>, me@ram.org writes: > >Perhaps better than spoon-feeding people you should spend more time > >educating them so they can it themselves (I realise you're doing this, > >but you're also doing other things). If you're really a group of > >people who want to help, and not a bunch of power-hungry zealots, that > >is. > You are responding to a post by Terry Liberty-Parker, who was forwarding > a message from "CyberAngels" Director Gabriel out > of context without, I would bet, telling Gabriel. Gabriel does not read > this newsgroup, so he is not here to defend himself. Do you see not a > whit of irony in your paragraph above? I see more than a little irony in an organization out to protect life on the net whose leader doesn't read, let alone participate in, a newsgroup like c.o.e.t. He's going to protect people on the internet when he doesn't have a clue about what it is or how it works? -- ethridge@nortel.com my opinions are my own From: ram@mbisgi.umd.edu (Ram Samudrala) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Batman on the Internet??? CyberAngels info Date: 4 May 1996 03:10:00 GMT Organization: The Centre for Advanced Research in Biotechnology Lines: 28 Message-ID: <4mehq8$bft@hecate.umd.edu> References: <0ef_9605021349@ima.infomail.com> <4mbo3f$dn7@hecate.umd.edu> <4mbu1b$h0k@Networking.Stanford.EDU> Reply-To: me@ram.org Richard Charles Graves (llurch@Networking.Stanford.EDU) wrote: >You are responding to a post by Terry Liberty-Parker, who was >forwarding a message from "CyberAngels" Director Gabriel > out of context without, I would bet, telling >Gabriel. Gabriel does not read this newsgroup, so he is not here to >defend himself. Do you see not a whit of irony in your paragraph >above? Yes, I do (in light of what you say). However, this message was posted on a public forum. I responded publicly. I don't know what other people might do; when I see a post which I feel like responding to, it is not that I am trying to make a point only to the person who posted the message (if I did, I'd respond over e-mail), but making a point to a public that has seen the message. I hope that makes sense---I'm unable to state my view on this clearly, but the main point is that it is I don't post just for the benefit of the original poster (nor is it my responsibility if someone whose arguments I respond to is not here to defend themselves). --Ram me@ram.org || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th God is a conjecture; but I desire that your conjectures should not reach beyond your creative will. Could you /create/ a god? Then do not speak to me of any gods. But you could well create the overman. ---Nietzsche From: rich@c2.org (Rich Graves) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Batman on the Internet??? CyberAngels info Date: 3 May 1996 10:47:28 -0700 Organization: Uncensored Internet, http://www.c2.org/uncensored/ Lines: 43 Sender: llurch@Networking.Stanford.EDU Message-ID: <4mdgrg$kun@Networking.Stanford.EDU> References: <0ef_9605021349@ima.infomail.com> <4mbo3f$dn7@hecate.umd.edu> <4mbu1b$h0k@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <318A3148.78D5@bnr.ca> Allen Ethridge writes: >Richard Charles Graves wrote: >> You are responding to a post by Terry Liberty-Parker, who was forwarding >> a message from "CyberAngels" Director Gabriel out >> of context without, I would bet, telling Gabriel. Gabriel does not read >> this newsgroup, so he is not here to defend himself. Do you see not a >> whit of irony in your paragraph above? > >I see more than a little irony in an organization out to protect life on the >net whose leader doesn't read, let alone participate in, a newsgroup like >c.o.e.t. He's going to protect people on the internet when he doesn't have >a clue about what it is or how it works? I very much agree with you, which is why I can't see myself actually defending the CyberSeraphim. But generally I'd prefer pointers and arguments to one-sided file uploads. People would have gotten a much better view had they, in addition to what was posted, been pointed to: http://www.safesurf.com/cyberangels/ I think you should encourage people to do their own research rather than taking the quick route of demonizing the opposition. Sometimes, lack of research makes you look silly (for example, Paul's insinuation in his CuD article that "Gabriel," the middle name that Colin goes by, is a reference to Archangel Gabriel), and other times, lack of research fails to uncover new and exciting opportunities for making the opposition look silly. For example, did you know that the CyberAngels are getting much of their information about anonymous remailers from L. Detweiler? I am not making this up. From: http://snyside.sunnyside.com/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/Announcements/CyberAngels-Safesurf | Special mention must go to an ongoing debate about anonymous | remailers, which was an area where we were less informed. Thanks to | an154280@anon.penet.fi for lots of very helpful suggestions. For | those of you interested in the debate about anonymity we have two | suggestions: firstly we have a HUGE FAQ on "Identity, Privacy and | Anonymity on the InterNet", written by L.Detweiler, and if any of you | want it, please write to us and ask for it (WARNING it is 138k!) | Secondly you can write to help@anon.penet.fi for their FAQ on their | anonymous service, which is also very educational. -rich From: sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Batman on the Internet??? CyberAngels info Date: 5 May 1996 15:00:08 GMT Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology Lines: 42 Message-ID: <4mifpo$7qt@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> References: <0ef_9605021349@ima.infomail.com> <4mbu1b$h0k@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <318A3148.78D5@bnr.ca> <4mdgrg$kun@networking.stanford.edu> Reply-To: sethf@mit.edu In article <4mdgrg$kun@networking.stanford.edu>, Rich Graves wrote: >Allen Ethridge writes: >>I see more than a little irony in an organization out to protect life on the >>net whose leader doesn't read, let alone participate in, a newsgroup like >>c.o.e.t. He's going to protect people on the internet when he doesn't have >>a clue about what it is or how it works? > >I very much agree with you, which is why I can't see myself actually >defending the CyberSeraphim. But generally I'd prefer pointers and >arguments to one-sided file uploads. People would have gotten a much >better view had they, in addition to what was posted, been pointed to: > > http://www.safesurf.com/cyberangels/ > >I think you should encourage people to do their own research rather than >taking the quick route of demonizing the opposition. Sometimes, lack of As a matter of intellectual "morality", you have a point. As a matter of reality, I have my doubts. Research convinces only those who do it, and that's just our little group of readers. One interesting thing I noted from the discussions was how very much "Gabriel" seemed to talk in little press-release soundbites, and push the hot-buttons (child pornography! security! protection!) in every posting. There's a danger to "sounding like a lawyer". Sure, research, to give one's articles weight and substance, but don't forswear calling them publicity-seeking scamming vigilantes at the appropriate moment. >research makes you look silly (for example, Paul's insinuation in his >CuD article that "Gabriel," the middle name that Colin goes by, is a >reference to Archangel Gabriel), and other times, lack of research fails The two usages are not in conflict. He could be using his middle name here *because* he likes the implication, with plausible deniability. Seth Finkelstein sethf@mit.edu Disclaimer : I am not the Lorax. I speak only for myself. (and certainly not for Project Athena, MIT, or anyone else). P.S.: I can't imagine Batman sitting in the Batcave surfing the net for "inappropriately rated" sites. Maybe Robin would do that. On the other hand, Curtis Sliwa would work real well as a frontman for the Penguin :-). From: angels@wavenet.com (Colin Gabriel Hatcher) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Batman on the Internet??? CyberAngels info Date: 10 May 1996 04:48:16 GMT Organization: CyberAngels Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <0ef_9605021349@ima.infomail.com> <4mbu1b$h0k@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <318A3148.78D5@bnr.ca> <4mdgrg$kun@networking.stanford.edu> <4mifpo$7qt@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> In article <4mifpo$7qt@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, sethf@mit.edu wrote: > In article <4mdgrg$kun@networking.stanford.edu>, Rich Graves wrote: > >Allen Ethridge writes: > >>I see more than a little irony in an organization out to protect life on the > >>net whose leader doesn't read, let alone participate in, a newsgroup like > >>c.o.e.t. He's going to protect people on the internet when he doesn't have > >>a clue about what it is or how it works? And how does Allen know what I read and do not read? FYI I read 30 newsgroups on a regular basis, but I dont have the luxury to sit down and post to them all the time. And what is with this "he doesn't have a clue about what it is or how it works"? That's not much of a discussion is it Allen? I believe that what Allen means to say is that he disagrees with our mission. What a shame it came out as rudeness. When 2 people disagree Allen, it doesn't mean that one of them is an idiot. BTW we have a new URL which is: http://www.proaxis.com/~safetyed/CYBERANGELS/cyberangels01.html Some of the readers here may like to visit it. Gabriel From: ethridge@onramp.net (Allen Ethridge) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Batman on the Internet??? CyberAngels info Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 23:54:11 -0500 Organization: Lines: 41 Message-ID: <199605132354115040212@stemmons34.onramp.net> References: <0ef_9605021349@ima.infomail.com> <4mbo3f$dn7@hecate.umd.edu> <4mbu1b$h0k@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <318A3148.78D5@bnr.ca> <4mdgrg$kun@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <4mifpo$7qt@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Colin Gabriel Hatcher wrote: > In article <4mifpo$7qt@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, sethf@mit.edu wrote: > > In article <4mdgrg$kun@networking.stanford.edu>, Rich Graves > wrote: > > >Allen Ethridge writes: > > >>I see more than a little irony in an organization out to protect life > > >>on the net whose leader doesn't read, let alone participate in, a > > >>newsgroup like c.o.e.t. He's going to protect people on the internet > > >>when he doesn't have a clue about what it is or how it works? > And how does Allen know what I read and do not read? FYI I read 30 > newsgroups on a regular basis, but I dont have the luxury to sit down and > post to them all the time. If you don't have the time to participate in c.o.e.f. then you don't have the time to protect the net. And I judged your participation in c.o.e.f. by the distinct lack of posts. It just seems strange that you would set yourself the goal of civilizing the net without having previously interacted with those already working in those areas. > And what is with this "he doesn't have a clue about what it is or how it > works"? That's not much of a discussion is it Allen? I believe that what > Allen means to say is that he disagrees with our mission. What a shame it > came out as rudeness. When 2 people disagree Allen, it doesn't mean that > one of them is an idiot. Did I call you an idiot? Or are you the one who's being rude? Ignorance and idiocy aren't the same thing. I've only read two posts from you on this newsgroup, and both were nothing but smart-ass remarks with no substance. Can I conclude that you are more interested in politics and power than in leadership and truth? -- if not me, then who? mailto:ethridge@onramp.net http://rampages.onramp.net/~ethridge/ From: angels@wavenet.com (Colin Gabriel Hatcher) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Batman on the Internet??? CyberAngels info Date: 15 May 1996 06:24:39 GMT Organization: CyberAngels Lines: 42 Message-ID: References: <0ef_9605021349@ima.infomail.com> <4mbo3f$dn7@hecate.umd.edu> <4mbu1b$h0k@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <318A3148.78D5@bnr.ca> <4mdgrg$kun@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <4mifpo$7qt@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <199605132354115040212@stemmons34.onramp.net> In article <199605132354115040212@stemmons34.onramp.net>, ethridge@onramp.net (Allen Ethridge) wrote: > If you don't have the time to participate in c.o.e.f. then you don't > have the time to protect the net. And I judged your participation in > c.o.e.f. by the distinct lack of posts. It just seems strange that you > would set yourself the goal of civilizing the net without having > previously interacted with those already working in those areas. That seems to me to be false logic Allen. As I already said I spend most of my Internet time dealing with email and investigating problems. Since I get about 50 email per day, that does not leave too much time for online discussion. Looking at my list I notice that at this time I have 3000 postings to read to get up to date. I am not "participating" very much in c.o.e.f. because I am too busy. If that is a crime then I plead guilty. It is clear to me that you do not know me, nor do you know what or who I know. Therefore I find it strange how quick you are to judge. As for interacting with others working to "civilize" the Net as you put it, I meet new people every week who are doing similar work. But since you are antagonistic to CyberAngels, it is hardly surprising that our paths do not cross very much. > Did I call you an idiot? Or are you the one who's being rude? > Ignorance and idiocy aren't the same thing. As I recall it Allen, weren't you the person in CUD encouraging users to bomb our email address? Wasn't it you that I advised to stop harassing me through email or I would complain to your ISP? Perhaps I am mixing people up, but I am sure it was you... Ah, so you are calling me ignorant rather than an idiot! Pity rather than anger? Well I never claimed to know everything, and indeed have learned a great deal in the past year. But calling someone ignorant is not really the way to have a discussion is it? As I recall, I stopped talking with you before, since I found you rude. I hope this is not going to be a repeat performance. Gabriel From: Allen Ethridge Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Batman on the Internet??? CyberAngels info Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 11:19:20 -0500 Organization: Bell-Northern Research Lines: 49 Message-ID: <319A0408.69EC@bnr.ca> References: <0ef_9605021349@ima.infomail.com> <4mbo3f$dn7@hecate.umd.edu> <4mbu1b$h0k@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <318A3148.78D5@bnr.ca> <4mdgrg$kun@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <4mifpo$7qt@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <199605132354115040212@stemmons34.onramp.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Colin Gabriel Hatcher wrote: > In article <199605132354115040212@stemmons34.onramp.net>, > ethridge@onramp.net (Allen Ethridge) wrote: > > Did I call you an idiot? Or are you the one who's being rude? > > Ignorance and idiocy aren't the same thing. > As I recall it Allen, weren't you the person in CUD encouraging users to > bomb our email address? Wasn't it you that I advised to stop harassing me > through email or I would complain to your ISP? Perhaps I am mixing people > up, but I am sure it was you... This is an out and out lie. I don't even know what CUD is. I have never harassed you in email - to the best of my knowledge I sent you one, and only one, direct email, and that was a courtesy solely to make you aware of criticisms of your organization that I was posting to the cypherpunks mail list. I have never threatened to mailbomb anyone or encouraged anyone else to. You have never complained to my ISP nor have you ever requested me to stop harassing you. Your twisted little "Perhaps I am mixing people up" comment does not prevent this post from being libel and it does not prevent me from taking legal action against you for the false and libelous remarks you have made. I expect a public apology. > Ah, so you are calling me ignorant rather than an idiot! Pity rather than > anger? Well I never claimed to know everything, and indeed have learned a > great deal in the past year. But calling someone ignorant is not really > the way to have a discussion is it? As I recall, I stopped talking with > you before, since I found you rude. I hope this is not going to be a > repeat performance. I've now read four posts from you - the only issue of substance I've seen in any of them is the libel contained in this one. And you wonder why people find you to be a threat to the net? allen ethridge@nortel.com (work) ethridge@onramp.net (play) ethridge@netcom.com (only occasionally) -- ethridge@nortel.com my opinions are my own From: angels@wavenet.com (Colin Gabriel Hatcher) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Batman on the Internet??? CyberAngels info Date: 16 May 1996 00:24:08 GMT Organization: CyberAngels Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: <0ef_9605021349@ima.infomail.com> <4mbo3f$dn7@hecate.umd.edu> <4mbu1b$h0k@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <318A3148.78D5@bnr.ca> <4mdgrg$kun@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <4mifpo$7qt@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <199605132354115040212@stemmons34.onramp.net> <319A0408.69EC@bnr.ca> In article <319A0408.69EC@bnr.ca>, Allen Ethridge wrote: > This is an out and out lie. I don't even know what CUD is. I have never > harassed you in email - to the best of my knowledge I sent you one, and only > one, direct email, and that was a courtesy solely to make you aware of criticisms > of your organization that I was posting to the cypherpunks mail list. I have > never threatened to mailbomb anyone or encouraged anyone else to. You have > never complained to my ISP nor have you ever requested me to stop harassing > you. > > Your twisted little "Perhaps I am mixing people up" comment does not prevent > this post from being libel and it does not prevent me from taking legal > action against you for the false and libelous remarks you have made. > > I expect a public apology. Reading the back issues of CUD I discover that I am indeed incorrect Allen - the person I was remembering was a gentleman by the name of Allen Smith (in Computer Underground Digest issue 7.91 or 7.93). It was Allen Smith back last year who was harassing me, not you. So you do indeed deserve a public apology for my previous comments, and I send you one and retract my earlier suggestion. Gabriel From: mudge@wilde.oit.umass.edu (Miskatonic Gryn) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Batman on the Internet??? CyberAngels info Date: 17 May 1996 10:46:33 -0400 Organization: The Rats in the Walls Lines: 61 Message-ID: <4ni3g9$1qk@wilde.oit.umass.edu> References: <4mbb5p$fh5@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <4n05pt$8bu@asimov.oit.umass.edu> In article , Colin Gabriel Hatcher wrote: >You do not have to trust my judgement because I am simply exercising my >right to ask questions about things I see that I don't like. You have the >same right and I hope you are using it. You are not just asking questions. You are 'bringing people to justice'. Your actions have the potential to make life miserable for a lot of innocent people, particularly if the CDA remains law. How would the Cyberangels conduct themselves in a scenario where anything 'indecent' is punishable by large fines and several years in jail? Will you go along with what's law (albeit unjust law) and cheerfully turn in anyone vile enough to place certain portions of the Bible, or the works of authors from Joyce to Rushdie on the Net? What about those hypothetical pro-life cyberangels you talk about on your website? Will you support them when they use the Comstock Act (given new life in the CDA) as an excuse to sic the government on pro-choice sites? Even if the CDA is declared unconstitutional, which I think is highly likely, there're still problems which have to be dealt with: - How are you planning to make your minions accountable for their actions? You are running an organization which could easily cause a lot of trouble for innocent people. Hell, it could do it accidentally. Child pornography makes people angry. It makes some people so angry they stop *thinking*. If your cheerful little group of net-vigilantes decides to publish lists of people you feel are doing bad things, you could ruin lives. And what would you say to the victims of your goof-ups. Oops? - How do you plan to operate in legally uncertain areas? It would be simple if the Cyberangels just dealt with stalkers, child pornographers, and other people who need to be kicked in the face repeatedly, but they don't. Your FAQ points out a willingness to go after people for a much broader range of activities, some of which're quite legal. This is a problem (which could be much worse if the CDA remains law). Ultimately, I just don't trust you guys. First thought I had when I heard the group was being created was 'I wonder how long that'll last before someone screws up'. With the Guardian Angels, it means someone walking home late gets roughed up by well-meaning but excitable people in berets. With the Cyberangels, it means the cops beat down someone's door, and drag him off to be charged with distributing child pornography. Either way, innocent people lose. - Gryn "What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." --Salman Rushdie From: jthomas2@sun.soci.niu.edu (Jim Thomas) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Batman on the Internet??? CyberAngels info Date: 17 May 1996 17:09:01 -0500 Organization: Northern Illinois University Lines: 16 Message-ID: <4nitdt$qh9@sun.soci.niu.edu> References: <4mbb5p$fh5@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <4n05pt$8bu@asimov.oit.umass.edu> <4ni3g9$1qk@wilde.oit.umass.edu> In article <4ni3g9$1qk@wilde.oit.umass.edu>, Miskatonic Gryn wrote: >You are not just asking questions. You are 'bringing people to justice'. >Your actions have the potential to make life miserable for a lot of >innocent people, particularly if the CDA remains law. > Their professed tactics resemble a vigiliante approach to material that, while protected by law, may violate the CA's sense of propriety. Worse, they are taking a pro-active approach by seeking out their targets. In conjunction with other moral entrepreneurs, they can be a sufficient nuisance to stifle information flow. jt jt