🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CnrIzG.46I@ferret.ocunix.on.ca>,
Chris Lewis <clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca> wrote:
>In article <1994Apr3.103918.13971@sizone.pci.on.ca>,
>Steak? <root@sizone.pci.on.ca> wrote:
>|
>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.

It is very simple:  Kibo (hi Kibo!), who is just an exceptional 
but normal person scans all newsgroups for references to himself.  He is not 
particularly well connected.  I'm paying $US 20 a month for a similar 
account.  

How many millions does the Canadian intelligence service spend on signals 
intercept?  How much much else can they get from their good buddy's the 
Americans (hi NSA!) and the British?  How much is justified in the name of 
good government?  Usenet is c. 50 Megs a week.  But a week is over 600 000 
seconds.  That is 88 characters a second- a i486 runs at about 20 _million_ 
instructions per second (depending on clock speed, system etc.).   So, 
given a good program and a decent feed, it's likely that most people reading 
this could do scan all of Usenet and do so ON THEIR OWN DESKS.  All the time.
Regularly.  

Its not too paranoid to imagine NSA and similar minded folk of all nations
and occupations scanning all international traffic.  We know they get paid 
to do things with a lot lower potential return.  Heck, all this stuff is in 
some digital form.  Very nice to scan when compared to voice or hardcopy.

If the Canadian gov't isn't scanning everything, its a local and temporary 
problem.  

Blocking everything is more problematic.  The people who designed our
nets tended to trust each other. (If only they knew this case would come up!)

>|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...

What I said before applies to email as well- at least such email not 
protected by local (including, of course, national) law.

>Who exactly?  Even from the "oldies" (like me) I don't see that.  What I do
>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.
 
Exposure to an anarchy where free speech is the rule does tend to make
people trust more in the people at large-  at least if we get at chance 
to judge if the people talking make sense.  We (those of us in western 
culture) all get faced with misleading information all the time in, for 
example, ads.  We cope.  We are citizens.  We think what we think is 
appropriate for us.  And we can discount misleading information as we have 
a need to.  Even if we are in a jury.  

Perhaps you are a special person with special powers of insight and know 
what the rest of us should be kept in the dark about.  Perhaps.

Until you prove so, the people who get to make the decisions should be the 
people.  Period.  Thats why we have juries in the first place.  Think 
about it.

Wishing you peace and justice,
Henry



-- 
That does it!  I'm putting me back in my kill file.