|
Home > Archive > Anonymous Servers > February 2006 > Philosophical dilemma
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Philosophical dilemma
|
|
| Ring Bearer 2006-02-21, 2:46 am |
| As with politics and fashion, there are swings of the
pendulum. From the 50's to the 70's to the present,
the acceptance of spying on Americans has swung
widely.
And so it goes with remailers. Talk of filtering for
content (or blocking, or whatever euphemism you choose
to use), was just getting popular with news servers
(and perhaps remains so), which spurred the development
of the remailers. Free speech. The remailers put
the responsibility for content squarely on the shoulders
of the poster...who then said things "people" didn't
like.
Talk of niggers, personal insults, threats and all else
came through, and here we go again.
I can remember when remailers operated without concerning
themselves with what went through. Then after 9/11 some
asked themselves (and others), "Do you think terrorists
use the network?" The answer was generally, "No", but
the doubts lingered.
But when did the remailers become the Miss Manners of
usenet? When did individual remailer preferences for
content supercede consensus?
"I don't like it when they call purple people 'eggplants'."
"I don't like nasty talk."
"I don't like binary stuff."
"I don't allow posting to groups where there *might* be
something encrypted and illegal."
What's next? Blocking groups where stocks are discussed
to prevent insider trading? How about blocking sports
groups to prevent illegal betting?
The unthinkable has become thinkable, and censorship,
the very thing that remailers should be preventing,
is on the horizon.
Remops seem more concerned with what goes through their remailers
than NSPs.
Ok, I'm done venting. Que sera, sera.
RB
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-02-21, 2:46 am |
| Ring Bearer / Eeltard / Tubby Turdgobbler wrote:
<snip Eeltard diatribe>
You need your medication adjusted.
| |
| George Orwell 2006-02-21, 7:46 am |
| In article <73dd3f22bb1e8977c7b83f5325e18485@pseudo.borked.net>
Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>
> Ring Bearer / Eeltard / Tubby Turdgobbler wrote:
>
> <snip Eeltard diatribe>
>
> You need your medication adjusted.
It was a post critical of censorship and content filtering and not by
eeltrash. I suggest you read it again.
| |
| Twisty Creek 2006-02-21, 7:46 am |
| On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 04:54:02 +0000 (UTC), Ring Bearer
<Bearer@anon.server> wrote:
>As with politics and fashion, there are swings of the
>pendulum. From the 50's to the 70's to the present,
>the acceptance of spying on Americans has swung
>widely.
>
>And so it goes with remailers. Talk of filtering for
>content (or blocking, or whatever euphemism you choose
>to use), was just getting popular with news servers
>(and perhaps remains so), which spurred the development
>of the remailers. Free speech. The remailers put
>the responsibility for content squarely on the shoulders
>of the poster...who then said things "people" didn't
>like.
>
>Talk of niggers, personal insults, threats and all else
>came through, and here we go again.
>
>I can remember when remailers operated without concerning
>themselves with what went through. Then after 9/11 some
>asked themselves (and others), "Do you think terrorists
>use the network?" The answer was generally, "No", but
>the doubts lingered.
>
>But when did the remailers become the Miss Manners of
>usenet? When did individual remailer preferences for
>content supercede consensus?
>
>"I don't like it when they call purple people 'eggplants'."
>"I don't like nasty talk."
>"I don't like binary stuff."
>"I don't allow posting to groups where there *might* be
>something encrypted and illegal."
>
>What's next? Blocking groups where stocks are discussed
>to prevent insider trading? How about blocking sports
>groups to prevent illegal betting?
>
>The unthinkable has become thinkable, and censorship,
>the very thing that remailers should be preventing,
>is on the horizon.
>
>Remops seem more concerned with what goes through their remailers
>than NSPs.
>
>Ok, I'm done venting. Que sera, sera.
Don't despair. It's basically Eelbash Admin (and his various
persona's) making all the noise. Twisty Admin thought it may have been
a solution to a particular problem but I think he has since seen the
light.
| |
| Thrasher Remailer 2006-02-21, 7:46 am |
| In article <Xns9770E8F1C128CBA@82.133.6.118>
Ring Bearer <Bearer@anon.server> wrote:
>
> But when did the remailers become the Miss Manners of
> usenet? When did individual remailer preferences for
> content supercede consensus?
Twisty briefly dabbled in content filtering, but accepted it wasn't a
good idea and stopped it.
So, there is only one remailer that filters on content and decides to
force its own world view on everyone. It's nothing new, he's been doing
it since 2000. Block eelbash in your client and the network returns to
its old self.
> The unthinkable has become thinkable, and censorship,
> the very thing that remailers should be preventing,
> is on the horizon.
It really isn't. Again, it is just *one* remailer. The others haven't
started supporting censorship. Please don't let the actions of one bad
remailer spoil your view of all the others.
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-02-21, 7:46 am |
| In article <Xns9770E8F1C128CBA@82.133.6.118>
Ring Bearer <Bearer@anon.server> wrote:
>
> Remops seem more concerned with what goes through their remailers
> than NSPs.
Yeah, I can send more posts through my NSP than I can through someone
like Eelbash.
| |
| TwistyCreek Admin 2006-02-21, 7:46 am |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 21 Feb 2006 07:56:29 -0000, Twisty Creek <thrasher@reece.net.au> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 04:54:02 +0000 (UTC), Ring Bearer
><Bearer@anon.server> wrote:
>
>
>Don't despair. It's basically Eelbash Admin (and his various
>persona's) making all the noise. Twisty Admin thought it may have been
>a solution to a particular problem but I think he has since seen the
>light.
>
Correct. Extreme desparation caused by one individual.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBQ/ sZBP9qPDhkRaWyEQIxRACdERR5ClQ6qM1wIRRur1
Du4SQOq6MAn3Hf
wGZ/T5JmIQ1Ikg/k5QVhqvlK
=hu0G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 04:54:02 +0000 (UTC), Ring Bearer wrote in
Message-Id: <Xns9770E8F1C128CBA@82.133.6.118>:
> As with politics and fashion, there are swings of the
> pendulum. From the 50's to the 70's to the present,
> the acceptance of spying on Americans has swung
> widely.
America has a spying culture, and not just internally.
The most sophisticated aircraft ever were built by America for
reconnaissance of other countries. Today, satellites make the job
easier. Without eyes on the rest of the world, the US TLA's get
nervous.
<snip>
> The unthinkable has become thinkable, and censorship,
> the very thing that remailers should be preventing,
> is on the horizon.
I disagree. I doubt any remailers (even Eelbash) filter content on
Email messages. The only filters are dest-blocks at the request of the
recipients.
Usenet is different, and it always has been. Not many remailers have
the ability to control what gets posted, they must rely on remote
mail2news gateways and news services to do the job for them. The news
or mail2news operators are accountable for their services and have to
control abuse to some extent. If they don't, their peers will.
Usenet propagation involves many servers, all of which will perform some
kind of abuse filtering. There isn't any uniformity about it as each
runs customised scripts. Posters can even bias where messages are read
by pre-loading Paths and other sneaky tricks.
When an anonymous message fails to arrive, the finger gets pointed at
the remop. In reality, he's the helpless guy at the end of a long chain
made of links he knows nothing about.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBQ/slEGoLu9HNUqmMAQqVSgf/V9ZBTIGPLrQZ+plQZMF572NCoq3FRney
rhKMAGaFefPk5PYgWYXVEUu+Z6qmqidVmLREUh1y
oCDWTlFVEPdQhEu4lKvQg6Ki
tMP7sTnk0hyjctFuqPVlPm5AFOagAazvhs+JGEdd
P5b77JRh0FLyxecSOpX5z/3H
4fMymBu5aFGme+wYoYp4EJ1RJepPZn66ICM1Odzy
+4vSZFrLvrxU/1+94Sl7TdR3
HN6K5law/NA6Zy+vRT3Ja8lLgQ9ChVQR9SEUgC5/PgE4zKGBvFlvBfA+MDFy9iW5
ckO7+70N9OSzqyIaPHKO65ap1r9Se/BPffiSkkboJchSVv5FDRIWRQ==
=GpNj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
pub 1024D/8ED57743 2003-07-08 Bananasplit Operator
Key fingerprint = 796F 67E0 E890 A0BB BDAE EBB4 94A6 7A09 8ED5 7743
uid Admin <admin.bananasplit.info>
| |
| [Anonymous] Anon User 2006-02-21, 5:47 pm |
| -----BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-----
Message-type: plaintext
In <k16mv15fts1p30snoofnlgduq3bcr34pkh@4ax.com> TwistyCreek Admin <admin^@^twistycreek^.^com> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 21 Feb 2006 07:56:29 -0000, Twisty Creek <thrasher@reece.net.au> wrote:
>
>Correct. Extreme desparation caused by one individual.
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>iQA/AwUBQ/ sZBP9qPDhkRaWyEQIxRACdERR5ClQ6qM1wIRRur1
Du4SQOq6MAn3Hf
>wGZ/T5JmIQ1Ikg/k5QVhqvlK
>=hu0G
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
Thank you. I have the greatest respect for you and the other remops.
It does take courage and self-restraint to avoid imposing one's
own personality on the system.
As someone else suggested, I need to adjust my medication.
Anon User
-----END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-----
| |
| [Anonymous] Anon User 2006-02-21, 5:47 pm |
| -----BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-----
Message-type: plaintext
In <PYV3X7VI38769.8549074074@reece.net.au> Thrasher Remailer <thrasher@reece.net.au> wrote:
>In article <Xns9770E8F1C128CBA@82.133.6.118>
>Ring Bearer <Bearer@anon.server> wrote:
>
>Twisty briefly dabbled in content filtering, but accepted it wasn't a
>good idea and stopped it.
>
>So, there is only one remailer that filters on content and decides to
>force its own world view on everyone. It's nothing new, he's been doing
>it since 2000. Block eelbash in your client and the network returns to
>its old self.
>
>
>
>It really isn't. Again, it is just *one* remailer. The others haven't
>started supporting censorship. Please don't let the actions of one bad
>remailer spoil your view of all the others.
>
>
>
You're right. I was just overreacting.
Please accept my apologies.
Anon User
-----END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-----
|
|
|
|
|