nrh@buzz.bellcore.com (Nat Howard) (01/01/70)
Joe Buck draws an important distinction between what was said and what was done, and then errs by saying that what was said by Mr. Nobody (instructions on how to sabotage someone) is somehow more worthy of censorship than instructions *to* censor someone. Let's leave the censorship ideas to folks afflicted with central controls, shall we? And at the same time let's recognize that yes, news admins implementing censorship are doing something incredibly tacky and inviting reprisal. To my mind, the *advocacy* of censorship (either in the form of "Just do this to get rid of X's postings" or in the form: "News Admins of the world, UNITE -- and blow this guy's postings away") are equally misguided. It's rather like having the Nazis march in Skokie: what they say is monstrous, evil, disgusting, and small-minded, but so long as they confine themselves to *saying* things (however awful) they are not engaged in activities that should bring down *administrative* controls on them. Free speech includes speech advocating non-free-speech. For the record, I'd be interested in who Mr. Nobody is, but then I was the sort of boy who used to turn over rocks to see what was under them. Any followups dealing mainly with the Skokie incident, or with free speech in general should go to talk.politics.misc, please.
woods@hao.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) (01/01/70)
In article <1442@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >Action (extremely severe action) should be taken against anyone >implementing Mr. Nobody's suggestion (what he suggested was a >mechanism for preventing Cheryl from posting to the net at all, and >he was specific as to how to do it). He did more than express an >opinion; he gave specific instructions for a form of net sabotage. >As a backbone admin, Greg, I think you should be more pissed off >about this than you seem to be. Especially when you stop to think >that a different name could be used instead. Instead, you equate >his offensiveness with that of Cheryl. The fact that Cheryl was the target is irrelevant. I simply make a distinction between saying something and doing it. I do not approve of the contents of Mr. Nobody's posting, especially since I'm against anonymous postings in general, but I think it opens an even bigger can of worms if we try to censor him. I agree with you that anyone who actually DOES what he suggests should be disiplined, for then THEY are committing censorship of the worst kind. I equate this to the magazines that wanted to publish instructions on how to build an atom bomb. No, we don't want people building atom bombs in their garages, but do we really want to get into censorship to prevent it? Do the ends justify the means? I personally do not think so. Particularly since it sets a very bad precedent. What I was trying to point out is that Valerie is suggesting that we do exactly what she is protesting against, i.e. kick someone off the net because of the contents of his postings. It's tantamount to saying "It's OK to censor someone I disagree with or someone whose articles are offensive". I know what Joe and Valerie are trying to say, and I sympathize despite my feelings about Cheryl, but we have to be realistic and look at the whole picture here. If we don't like what he posted, let's do what is always done and flame the hell out of him, but let's NOT suggest that he be kicked off the net just because we find his article offensive. --Greg -- UUCP: {hplabs, seismo, nbires, noao}!hao!woods CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA INTERNET: woods@hao.ucar.edu
root@hobbes.UUCP (John Plocher) (01/01/70)
+---- Valerie Maslak writes in <6086@sri-unix.ARPA> ---- | I continue to insist that administrators follow up | and find out who Mr. Nobody is, and take appropriate disciplinary | action. I leave it to the concensus of the net.gods as to what that | should be. +---- Valerie, Cheryl, Mr. Nobody, et al; Why don't we all take a step back and put some sanity in this discussion? Everyone has the right to express and promote their opinions. Everyone. What they don't have the right to do is force their opinions on others. There is a fine line between the two. Mr Nobody has the right to suggest whatever he wants, just as Valerie has the right to voice her views. But for either of them to force their views on others is WRONG! What *I* think is that the net should BOTH ignore Mr. Nobody's request for Cheryl's newsfeeds to be cut off AND ignore Valerie's request for retaliation. This way, if there are errors made by either side they won't result in disruption of the net for either party. (For a fictional view of this situation, read Isaac Asimov's Foundations Edge, Chapter 20, part 5 (p 422)) It is much better to be lenient and forgiving and let some wrongs get by than it is to be judgmental and arrogant and punish one who did no wrong. If you wish to ignore me, that's all right, too. Just don't flame to the net; use email instead. -- John Plocher uwvax!geowhiz!uwspan!plocher plocher%uwspan.UUCP@uwvax.CS.WISC.EDU
jj@alice.UUCP (08/21/87)
> > Path: alice!allegra!princeton!rutgers!sri-spam!parcvax!novax!nobody > > /usr/lib/news/expire -f cheryl@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu -e 1 > > That well placed line in all of batcomputer's (or wherever she posts from) > news neighbors will cut off her circulation fast ... > "Mr. Nobody"'s header and path are hereby posted explicity as a public service. Well, Mr. Nobody, You certainly are a nobody. Your idea, that somebody should be disenfranchised by (essentially) sabotage, is nothing short of censorship. In its insidious nature, it's a particularly vile form, too. How about it, people at parcvax and sri-spam, where did this one come from? Notice: This goes to news.admin. Flames do NOT belong there, I'm putting the faked message there so that admin's see it. If you want to flame me, or my ideas, put it in soc.women, or even better soc.men. I'll be there to meet you. -- TEDDY BEARS DON'T GET TESTOSTERONE POISONING. "..My get up and go has got up and went, and in spite of it all ..." (ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj Copyright JJ 1987. All rights to mail reserved, USENET redistribution otherwise granted to those who allow free redistritution.
maslak@sri-unix.ARPA (Valerie Maslak) (08/25/87)
Thanks jj for not letting this one slide by. I for one think that disciplinary action should be taken against whoever posted the article suggesting sabotage against Cheryl. We don't need net terrorism, and I think shutting off Mr. Nobody would be a good object lesson to others. Administrators, will you find Mr. Nobody and take some disciplinary action? Valerie Maslak
woods@hao.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) (08/25/87)
While I can understand Valerie Maslak's outrage at Mr. Nobody's suggested
censorship, surely we can see that censoring him would be just as bad
as what he suggested we do to Cheryl? I certainly don't approve of what
he said, and I also think Cheryl's oft-expressed anger is pretty hard to
take no matter HOW justified it may be, but I do NOT think EITHER of
them should be refused access to the net solely for those reasons
(which are, admittedly, only my personal opinions anyway).
--Greg
--
UUCP: {hplabs, seismo, nbires, noao}!hao!woods
CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
INTERNET: woods@hao.ucar.edumaslak@sri-unix.ARPA (Valerie Maslak) (08/25/87)
As I've said in email to another person, I don't see Cheryl and Mr. Nobody's behavior to be in the same category at all. Cheryl engages in hard-hitting argument and debate in an open public forum. I think that's healthy for the net. Mr. Nobody advocates net terrorism behind the scenes. I think that's unhealthy. You don't like what Cheryl says, you argue with her. You don't like what Mr. Nobody says and say so in public, and you may end up in the net equivalent of Dachau. I don't care whether Mr. Nobody is male, female, fowl, or fish. I hate cowards. I continue to insist that administrators follow up and find out who Mr. Nobody is, and take appropriate disciplinary action. I leave it to the concensus of the net.gods as to what that should be. At some point, if we don't show we can conduct ourselves responsibly, the matter may be taken out of our hands. I don't take threats against freedom of speech lightly. Valerie Maslak
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (08/25/87)
In article <863@hao.UCAR.EDU> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: >While I can understand Valerie Maslak's outrage at Mr. Nobody's suggested >censorship, surely we can see that censoring him would be just as bad >as what he suggested we do to Cheryl? I certainly don't approve of what >he said, and I also think Cheryl's oft-expressed anger is pretty hard to >take no matter HOW justified it may be, but I do NOT think EITHER of >them should be refused access to the net solely for those reasons >(which are, admittedly, only my personal opinions anyway). Action (extremely severe action) should be taken against anyone implementing Mr. Nobody's suggestion (what he suggested was a mechanism for preventing Cheryl from posting to the net at all, and he was specific as to how to do it). He did more than express an opinion; he gave specific instructions for a form of net sabotage. As a backbone admin, Greg, I think you should be more pissed off about this than you seem to be. Especially when you stop to think that a different name could be used instead. Instead, you equate his offensiveness with that of Cheryl. I'm not in favor of a big hunt to seek out and destroy Mr. Nobody; I doubt if it can be done anyway. But I warn any clever young dweeb at a topologically important site against implementing the suggestion; word will get out -- we'll notice the cutoff and we WILL track it down. After we find the guilty party, we'll send Cheryl his name and address, along with a brand new pair of bolt cutters. Then we'll see who's not afraid of the Batwoman! :-) -- - Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com {seismo,ucbvax,sun,decwrl,<smart-site>}!epimass.epi.com!jbuck Old arpa mailers: jbuck%epimass.epi.com@seismo.css.gov
zwicky%tut.cis.ohio-state.edu@osu-eddie.UUCP (Elizabeth Zwicky) (08/25/87)
In article <863@hao.UCAR.EDU> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: >While I can understand Valerie Maslak's outrage at Mr. Nobody's suggested >censorship, surely we can see that censoring him would be just as bad >as what he suggested we do to Cheryl? > >--Greg Ah, but there's a difference. Had Mr. Nobody, under a real name, suggested it, that would be slimey, but nothing more. He didn't. He chose to use a fake name and a fake machine. Even had he said something I agreed with under that name (which isn't even a good or clever fake) I'd still vote for throwing him off. We don't want him censored for what he said, but for what he did, which is conclusive proof that he doesn't want to play by the rules. People want to censor Cheryl for posting her opinions, under her name, to a public newsgroup. Not for breaking the rules; not for attacking people in E-mail; for expressing opinions people don't like. --- Elizabeth
maslak@sri-unix.ARPA (Valerie Maslak) (08/26/87)
Greg, Joe and I seem to think you're missing the point. It's not that Mr. Nobody's article was OFFENSIVE; I can deal with and even appreciate offensive. No, it's that it was cowardly (anonymous) terrorism, ENCOURAGING and FACILITATING, not merely advocating, action that could cripple the net. By posting that command line, Mr. Nobody made it possible for a lot of people to be a lot closer to silencing anyone on the net they don't agree with. I call that terrorism, and I say it has to be CONDEMNED and punished. Hear what I'm saying? It's a long way from saying "someone shut Cheryl's mouth" to showing them how they can do it. It crosses the line. By the way, what about the path that jj listed? Valerie Maslak
john@geac.UUCP (John Henshaw) (08/26/87)
In article <6138@sri-unix.ARPA>, maslak@sri-unix.ARPA (Valerie Maslak) writes: > No, it's that it was cowardly (anonymous) terrorism, ENCOURAGING and > FACILITATING, not merely advocating, action that could cripple the > net. By posting that command line, Mr. Nobody made it possible for a > lot of people to be a lot closer to silencing anyone on the net they > don't agree with. I call that terrorism, and I say it has to be > CONDEMNED and punished. > Valerie Maslak That it was cowardly, I certainly agree. That it was "terrorism" I don't. Mr. [coward] Nobody has certainly pointed out how to "silence" or restrict postings. This is akin to people suggesting various ways to kill or maim others. Are *they* guilty or are the people who actually *do* the dirty deed guilty? In our society we punish those who actually *do* bad things. (Yes, I know what "conspiracy" is...) Mr. [jerk] Nobody has pointed out how to "silence anyone on the net", but he isn't the one who made it possible. That was designed into the facility that forwards news. If a site administrator actually goes ahead and implements Mr. [clown] Nobody's suggestion, then I suggest that he/she/it *are* guilty of terrorism. I agree that condemnation is advisable. But *who* has the right to punish? The mature response is to find out who this person is and explain the realities of the use of the net. We should *help* people with social problems - not punish them. Please don't take the above statements as support for Mr. [*ssh*le] Nobody. I'm more concerned in our reaction to this particular issue. -john- -- John Henshaw, (mnetor, yetti, utgpu !geac!john) Geac Computers Ltd. "Try to fit the social norm... and be a Markham, Ontario good man in a storm..."
john@frog.UUCP (08/27/87)
In article <863@hao.UCAR.EDU>, woods@hao.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: > While I can understand Valerie Maslak's outrage at Mr. Nobody's suggested > censorship, surely we can see that censoring him would be just as bad > as what he suggested we do to Cheryl? While I can understand Greg Woods' desire to be reasonable, surely we can see that there is a fundamental difference between posting opinions that one regards as outrageous*, and forging messages anonymously suggesting sabotage of another person's postings and thereby sabotaging the cooperative venture that is USENET? ** Different opinions I can live with. Destructive turkeys I can live without. * It has (probably) been years since I've read a message by Cheryl, and I don't know whether I would be outraged by anything she has said. It doesn't matter, anyway. ** It has been pointed out many times that messages are forgable, "Mr. Nobody" gets no points for being helpful on that score. USENET is easy enough to flood with useless crap when people have their names on articles. Turkeys who escape even this faint psychological responsibility for their own actions can only doom us all. -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu ROBOTS!! Underpaid robots from hyper-space INSPECTED my DELICATE WASHABLES!!
era@ddsw1.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) (08/27/87)
In article <864@hao.UCAR.EDU>, woods@hao.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: > worms if we try to censor him. I agree with you that anyone who actually > DOES what he suggests should be disiplined, for then THEY are committing > censorship of the worst kind. I equate this to the magazines that wanted to > publish instructions on how to build an atom bomb. No, we don't want I wonder if your equation is appropriate, Greg. Would you say that we shouldn't censor a person who posts a credit card number other than their own, or a phone access number, or protected source code or copyrighted programs, but only penalize people who USE the published material? --Mark -- Poster assumes all liability for contents of this article. Mark Ethan Smith ihnp4!ddsw1!era
rsweeney@dasys1.UUCP (Robert Sweeney) (08/27/87)
In article <864@hao.UCAR.EDU> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: > (...) >If we don't like what he posted, let's do what is always >done and flame the hell out of him, but let's NOT suggest that he be kicked >off the net just because we find his article offensive. >--Greg I agree. Out of curiosity, though - exactly how could someone be kicked off of the net? I'd imagine that net people could put pressure on the offender's sysadmin and try to convince that person to cut off his access to netnews, which would work if the sysadmin capitulated. But I can't see how someone determined to have net access could be kept off. His/her account could be deleted on the original machine, but what's to keep her/him from gaining access through other means (such as signing up for a public- access system like mine)? As far as I can see, nothing. The net could put pressure on any site that allowed this person access, but what other recourse would it have - short of implementing those 'censorship' programs, which would only work if the articles passed through the sites where the programs were in operation. The general trend of net topography, so far as I can see, is toward decentralization rather than the 'backbone' system - many articles that we receive here at dasys1 have not passed through a 'backbone' site yet. As stated, I imagine that it would be quite difficult to actually 'kick someone off of the net' if that person was determined to stay on. -- Robert Sweeney {sun!hoptoad,cmcl2!phri}!dasys1!rsweeney Big Electric Cat Public Access Unix (212) 879-9031 - System Operator "You crossed my line of death!"
daveb@geac.UUCP (Brown) (08/27/87)
In article <1248@geac.UUCP> john@geac.UUCP (John Henshaw) writes: >That it was cowardly, I certainly agree. That it was "terrorism" I don't. >Mr. [coward] Nobody has certainly pointed out how to "silence" or >restrict postings. This is akin to people suggesting various ways to >kill or maim others. Are *they* guilty or are the people who actually >*do* the dirty deed guilty? In our society we punish those who actually >*do* bad things. Technical point: if someone attempts to convince someone to kill or maim others (as opposed to saying he'd like to kill someone), he is subject to a charge of "procuring the commission of a crime". It is a judgment call by a real Judge as to whether he was *committing* a crime... On a different sub-subject, if that message passed through the ARPAnet it can probably be tracked: SMTP had that capability designed in to its logging facilities (well, usually). UUCP is a bit weaker, but not all that much. --dave (ex-ARPAnaut) collier-brown -- David Collier-Brown. {mnetor|yetti|utgpu}!geac!daveb Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind) CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.
jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard) (08/28/87)
In article <6086@sri-unix.ARPA>, maslak@sri-unix.ARPA (Valerie Maslak) writes: > I hate cowards. I continue to insist that administrators follow up > and find out who Mr. Nobody is, and take appropriate disciplinary > action. I leave it to the concensus of the net.gods as to what that > should be. Good luck. I'm not sure that anything CAN be done about the scuzzball. > At some point, if we don't show we can conduct ourselves > responsibly, the matter may be taken out of our hands. I don't take > threats against freedom of speech lightly. Hold on a minute! You're forgetting something: FREEDOM OF SPEECH DOES NOT APPLY ON THE NETWORK. I'm doing this on my personal system. If I really wanted to disappear all articles from Cheryl (not that I would), there's NOTHING you can do to prevent me from doing so. Please remember that this is run on privately owned computer hardware, with real expenditures involved to support our arguing. If I chose not to expend my $ on anyone's posting, that's MY right as system owner. If you want to dictate to me what I keep on my computer, I'll be happy to take your check for $4500 for my loaded AT-clone. That said, I don't like his tactics either. I'm at least courageous enough to stand behind my opinions with my real name and location. Attacks from hiding are despicable. -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC...>splut!< | uucp: hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!nuchat!splut!jay "Don't ask ME about Unix... | (or sun!housun!nuchat) CI$: 71036,1603 I speak SNA!" | internet: beats me GEnie: JAYMAYNARD The opinions herein are shared by neither of my cats, much less anyone else.
jte@psuvax1.psu.edu (Jon Eckhardt) (08/28/87)
Correct me if I am wrong please... News "censership" as I know it has probably been going on for some time but in a different form. It was basicly up to the local admins to slap the hands of people who were bad on your site to protect the "image" of your site. If you were creating postings that offended people or went against the unspoken rules of usenet then it was usually pointed out to the offender and they were given a chance to reform. I too had my hands slaped a few years ago, and I think it did some good. (I never read the announce newsgroups so I was posting in all sorts of wrong places) Now I am in a different position and I still feel that it is up to the site to make sure that bad "articles" are not created on your machine. I notice that this may be hard, partly because news is not very secure, and also because now there are many one user UNIX systems (like the 3b1) that can be gotten quite cheaply. You may then have one site that feeds to upwards of 10 single user machines. Does it then become the job of the person who is feeding news to make sure that the single user is not being of some trouble to the net? It is a real problem and I see not easy solution. One thing must always be kept in mind that I learned this year, USENET is not really a democratic orginazation basicly because there is not a even distribution of work and thus the machines that do more work have more say in what goes on. (Just like if you own 75% of the stock in a company what you say goes because you are paying for everything). This probably does not shed much light on what to do with Mr. Nobody... Jon Eckhardt | jte@psuvax1.BITNET <== BITNET 736 W. Hamilton Ave. | jte@psuvax1.UUCP <== USENET State College, PA 16801 | jte@psuvax1.psu.edu <== ARPA .sig file under construction, please bear with us. (roar) UUCP = <allegra,ihnp4,atcgva,burdvax,purdue>!psuvax1!jte
molly@killer.UUCP (Molly Fredericks) (08/28/87)
In article <1580@frog.UUCP>, john@frog.UUCP (John Woods, Software) writes: > In article <863@hao.UCAR.EDU>, woods@hao.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: > > While I can understand Valerie Maslak's outrage at Mr. Nobody's suggested > > censorship, surely we can see that censoring him would be just as bad > > as what he suggested we do to Cheryl? > > While I can understand Greg Woods' desire to be reasonable, surely we can see > that there is a fundamental difference between posting opinions that one > regards as outrageous*, and forging messages anonymously suggesting sabotage > of another person's postings and thereby sabotaging the cooperative venture > that is USENET? ** It is my understanding, and Cheryl may well be able to shed some light on this issue, that for one to forge such an article so well means that individual is capable of forging all manner of control messages, including expiring articles from individuals. No, finding Mr. Nobody and cutting off her account would be a great way to protect the universe from a potential maniac. Sure, you don't like what Cheryl says this week? Just forge a cancel message and *poof*, noone gets to read that article. Consider the diffence between `Cheryl, Shut Up' and the intimidation that Mr. Nobody is using. Perhaps Cheryl can enlighten us on the inner workings of news (before I go drag out the 2.7 sources ...) Molly -- Molly Fredericks UUCP: { any place real }!ihnp4!killer!molly Disclaimer: Neither me, nor my cat, had anything to do with any of this "I love giving my cat a bath, except for all those hairs I get on my tongue" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
robinson@renoir.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (08/28/87)
In article <2178@bellcore.bellcore.com> nrh@bellcore.bellcore.com (Nat Howard) writes: >It's rather like having the Nazis march in Skokie: what they say is >monstrous, evil, disgusting, and small-minded, but so long as they >confine themselves to *saying* things (however awful) they are not >engaged in activities that should bring down *administrative* >controls on them. Would you consider unauthorized access to a privately owned NNTP port for the purpose of anonymous intimidation an activity that "should bring down *administrative* controls?" That's what people are objecting to. Not the "Cheryl shut up" part. That is nothing new. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Robinson USENET: ucbvax!ernie!robinson ARPA: robinson@ernie.berkeley.edu
tjc@hrcca.UUCP ( Tom Chapin ) (08/28/87)
In article <1112@dasys1.UUCP>, rsweeney@dasys1.UUCP (Robert Sweeney) writes: > - exactly how could someone be kicked off of the net? 1) System Administrator removes their account. - The censored person gets an account somewhere else, such as a public access system, or fights the action politically (freedom of speech has a large following even now). 2) Netnews Administrator recompiles netnews with the FASCIST option set. - The censored can try for a different user id name, send articles for someone else to post, use the options above... 3) Use Nobody's suggestion to expire the person's articles. - This will do next to nothing. Nobody's suggestion only expires articles which have already been successfully posted to a given machine, and if someone reads the article before the Netnews Administrator runs the expire, then they get to read the article. But the article itself still gets transmitted throughout the network. 4) ALL surrounding sites which exchange the newsgroups which the censored person likes to use hack their software reject this persons articles. - This assumes the improbability of universal cooperation, and assumes admins have the expertise and time to go to all the trouble for one person. Unlikely. It is very unlikely that a determined poster can be kept off the net. > offender's sysadmin and try to convince that person to cut off his access > to netnews, which would work if the sysadmin capitulated. But I can't > see how someone determined to have net access could be kept off. His/her > account could be deleted on the original machine, but what's to keep her/him > from gaining access through other means (such as signing up for a public- > access system like mine)? As far as I can see, nothing. The net could > put pressure on any site that allowed this person access, but what other > recourse would it have - short of implementing those 'censorship' programs, > which would only work if the articles passed through the sites where the > programs were in operation. The general trend of net topography, so far > as I can see, is toward decentralization rather than the 'backbone' system - > many articles that we receive here at dasys1 have not passed through a > 'backbone' site yet. > > As stated, I imagine that it would be quite difficult to actually 'kick > someone off of the net' if that person was determined to stay on. > > -- > Robert Sweeney {sun!hoptoad,cmcl2!phri}!dasys1!rsweeney > Big Electric Cat Public Access Unix (212) 879-9031 - System Operator > "You crossed my line of death!" -- Tom Chapin {ihnp4,clyde,moss,ulysses,allegra,etc,etc}!hrcca!tjc
nrh@buzz.bellcore.com (Nat Howard) (08/28/87)
by the owner of the port -- not the net as a whole. >That's what people are objecting to. Not the "Cheryl shut up" part. >That is nothing new. Untrue -- I've posted copies of examples below. The horribly tempting thing about censorship is that it's always possible to find someone sleazy enough to inspire the desire for it. The calls for censorship predate the idea that it was an nntp port being abused, by the way. By the way, at one point Valerie leaves it up to the net.gods to decide what punishment is appropriate. I think Greg has spoken well on this: let's flame Mr. Nobody into the ground! Would the folks who advocate censoring Mr. Nobody also advocate censoring Abbie Hoffman for writing "Steal This Book"? As I understand it, the book describes how to make bombs, but I've never read the book, so I don't know first-hand. Debate on this issue should go in talk.politics.misc. ]Message-ID: <6138@sri-unix.ARPA> ]Date: 25 Aug 87 22:44:41 GMT ]Reply-To: maslak@sri-unix.UUCP (Valerie Maslak) ] ]It's not that Mr. Nobody's article was OFFENSIVE; I can deal with ]and even appreciate offensive. ] ]No, it's that it was cowardly (anonymous) terrorism, ENCOURAGING and ]FACILITATING, not merely advocating, action that could cripple the ]net. By posting that command line, Mr. Nobody made it possible for a ]lot of people to be a lot closer to silencing anyone on the net they ]don't agree with. I call that terrorism, and I say it has to be ]CONDEMNED and punished. ] ]Hear what I'm saying? It's a long way from saying "someone shut ]Cheryl's mouth" to showing them how they can do it. It crosses the ]line. Certainly the objection to anonymity is clear, but it is given two words and a pair of parenthesis -- much more is done with the evil command line. Want another example? ]>From: jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) ]Summary: Make my day, Mr. Nobody ]Message-ID: <1442@epimass.EPI.COM> ]Date: 25 Aug 87 07:02:13 GMT ]... ][Mr. Nobody] did more than express an ]opinion; he gave specific instructions for a form of net sabotage. ]As a backbone admin, Greg, I think you should be more pissed off ]about this than you seem to be. Especially when you stop to think ]that a different name could be used instead. Instead, you equate ]his offensiveness with that of Cheryl. Oh, and how about: ]>From: maslak@sri-unix.ARPA (Valerie Maslak) ]Message-ID: <6077@sri-unix.ARPA> ]Date: 24 Aug 87 21:22:23 GMT ] ]Thanks jj for not letting this one slide by. I for one think ]that disciplinary action should be taken against whoever ]posted the article suggesting sabotage against Cheryl. ]We don't need net terrorism, and I think shutting off Mr. Nobody ]would be a good object lesson to others. Note that in the one above (one of the earliest) no particular issue is made of the anonymity of the note -- it is clearly a reaction to the attempt at shutting down Cheryl. It is also a call for censorship: "shutting off" Mr. Nobody. Oh well, I am now bored with this issue -- see you later...
jte@psuvax1.psu.edu (Jon Eckhardt) (08/29/87)
In article <2242@bellcore.bellcore.com> nrh@bellcore.bellcore.com (Nat Howard) writes: >In article <20326@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> robinson@renoir.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Michael Robinson) writes: >>In article <2178@bellcore.bellcore.com> nrh@bellcore.bellcore.com (Nat Howard) writes: >> >>Would you consider unauthorized access to a privately owned NNTP port >>for the purpose of anonymous intimidation an activity that "should >>bring down *administrative* controls?" > >Yes -- by the owner of the port -- not the net as a whole. There is no real nead to have anonymous nntp postings if that is what is getting people so upset. If you are running nntp you can make the default entry no no (in other words read/xfer = no post = no) in your nntp_access file (or whatever you call it on your node) and then no machines execpt the machines that you designate in the access file will be able to talk with the nntp server. The real bug is not in nntp though, it is in inews. Going after nntp is like trying to make arms deals with the soviets, it sure looks like you are doing something usefull but you are not really attacking the real problem. --Jon Eckhardt # jte@psuvax1.psu.edu <- ARPA Phone: 237-1901 (Home) # # jte@psuvax1 <- BITNET Looks like Reganomics # # <ihnp4,burdvax,purdue>!psuvax1!jte <- UUCP worked! #
kyle@xanth.UUCP (Kyle Jones) (08/30/87)
news.admin Comments directed to news administrators. Please. If you're going to hunt down Mr. Nobody and hang, draw and quarter, or burn it at the stake, let me hear about it on the six o'clock news, not here. Thank you.
dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (09/11/87)
In article <6138@sri-unix.ARPA> maslak@sri-unix.UUCP (Valerie Maslak) writes: > >By posting that command line, Mr. Nobody made it possible for a >lot of people to be a lot closer to silencing anyone on the net they >don't agree with. I call that terrorism, and I say it has to be >CONDEMNED and punished. I doubt that Mr. Nobody had much effect other than making a fool of himself. In the first place, the command line that was suggested, if run regularly, *does* have the effect of deleting all articles from a particular address from the news spool directories - this would have the effect of preventing people on that one machine from seeing them unless they read news very shortly after it arrived. However, it would (on most machines at least) *not* interfere with the copy being transmitted to the next machine downstream. Thus it would not in fact cut off distribution of Cheryl's (or anyone else's) articles to the outside world. Many news administrators must already know this - perhaps this is why they're not particularly concerned? Also, the information he published is not exactly a previously well-guarded secret - it's documented in the expire man page, and has been for a long time. Even if someone posted explicit directions *that worked* about how to censor a particular person (and I suspect most news administrators could figure out at least one working method without help), I still wouldn't worry too much. It would generally require the cooperation of several system administrators to totally silence someone, and I have a better opinion of the honesty of most SA's than that. Now, I believe that Mr. Nobody was really trying to do something malicious, and if it turned out that the article originated from a machine I supervised, I might feel I should do something about him. (Mainly because the posting was malicious and thus abused anonymity, not because of the command line it contained.) But I think the overall effect of his suggestion on the net as a whole, and Cheryl in particular, is just about nil (other than to generate a lot of traffic!), so I think that most SA's treating this whole affair with a shrug is quite appropriate.