🚀 go-pugleaf

Chris Lewis (clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca) wrote:
: |WHAT?! This is going to happen sometime, if not now, then later. Dont believe
: |its impossible? Are you KIDDING? There was MORE THAN 1,000,000 posts on the

: Nonsense.  Computers are really good at doing greps.  It wouldn't take much
: more than an hour's fiddling to produce a modified "Usenet Death Penalty"
: program that could globally nuke almost everything that refers to the case.
: Doesn't need much of a machine either.  A Sparc II with an NNTP or V.32bis
: feed could do it quite handily.  Heck, even a 3b1 could do it.

You're right actually... but thats even scarrier. I'd rather have a human
with some common sense and grasp of the issues to be censoring it if the
govt MUST do it, rather than a program. I could make this post get banned
while talking about TOILET PAPER or something if I wanted to. In fact,
tons of people have supposed NSA-sniffer-triggering info in their .sigs -- or,
I just triggered it now by mentioning it... :)

Having a machine censor on that kind of criteria is really scary. Even with
a very powerful engine it would remain scary. Of course, its also relatively
easy to defeat (while defeating ourselves) - post everything with a reference
to Homolka in it.

: |I am so stupid. I just realised NOW that just cause someone's on the net
: |doesnt mean they believe its original core tenets: freedom of speech in news,
: |and privacy in email. I can see even now there ARE people who are on the net
: |who WOULDNT agree with this...

: Who exactly?  Even from the "oldies" (like me) I don't see that.  What I do

What's an oldie? I've been here 6 years... :)

: see is many people who do believe in free speech, but also believe in even
: more important rights - like life and liberty.  Sometimes freedom of speech
: is in conflict with other rights.  And I would think that even a cyberweenie
: should agree that when the choice is between a fair trial and absolutely free
: speech, that fair trial wins.  Always.

Seems that all these Yanquiz cant grasp that for the life of them, in the
name of A Current Affair's rights. (poke poke)

So are you saying that to get the alt.sex.* groups back on UWaterloo's machines
all we have to do is get the groups (campus feminist groups as I understand)
onto the Net and they'll instantly understand? It would be nice to think that,
and tho to me it seems incredibly easy from a short tour to figure out that
the usenet is totally geared against censorship and embodies the right to
free speech that they would STILL argue against that in favour of cutting
groups like alt.sex.

Mebbe we should have more nebulous group names. I think the alt.* hierarchy
is quite excellent since its easy to create a group as soon as something else
is banned, and its also very easy to misname a group or misappropriate the
name so that you can talk about what ever you want. The entire net should
be like that so sweeping labels cant be applied: "alt.fan.karla-homolka? Havent
read it, but sounds dangerous, specially with the 'Karla' word in it - rmgroup
it, underling sysadmins!"

/kc

-- 
Ken P. Chasse -- Sysadmin, Sonic Interzone   "Carrying netnews does not a 
Public Access email/Usenet -- 416-968-7292    publisher make." - something
spooge@sizone.pci.on.ca --  Toronto CANADA    I'd like to see. Support it.