From: Brock Nanson (bnanson_at_true.bc.ca)
Date: Tue Sep 03 2002 - 19:16:14 CEST
Maybe someone can help me understand this...
Just exactly how is a virus 'free speech'? My understanding has always
been that free speech involved letting anyone say anything without fear
of retribution. Implicit in that is the identity of the speaker would
be known. Sniping from the shadows of anonymity doesn't fit the
definition in my mind! That would be the only option if free speech
didn't exist.
So if we can assume that a virus is sent unwittingly by some poor
infected soul, it isn't his speech, is it? It's nothing more than a
guerilla attack... A bomb hidden in an innocent's suitcase, carried onto
the plane. Is that bomb free speech? Should it be permitted in a free
and just society? If you say 'yes', then you are inviting anarchy...
Something that the list verges on some days, it seems.
Fine, if you want to let people post anonymously (well, from throw-away
addresses like hotmail) so be it. That is NOT the issue!!! Can someone
help me follow the logic of why blocking a virus would be considered a
blow to liberty? Block the typical file attachment extensions... If
someone *really* needs to send an scr or exe or doc file to the list,
they can change the extension or zip it without losing their freedom to
post what they want.
Come on FreeS/WAN people! Following an ideal blindly is both dangerous
and stupid. There's a huge difference between being intelligent and
being smart... Ignoring this issue does nothing to increase your
credibility of the credibility of the project - which is a big shame!
Brock
> -----Original Message-----
> From: users-admin_at_lists.freeswan.org
> [mailto:users-admin_at_lists.freeswan.org] On Behalf Of Zoilo
> Sent: September 3, 2002 8:22 AM
> To: Rosewood
> Cc: linux-ipsec_at_freeswan.org
> Subject: Re: [Users] Viruses, spam, etc etc
>
>
> On Tuesday 03 September 2002 17:08, Rosewood wrote:
> > Well, I know I don't worry too much about it because the virii are
> > stopped at the pop3 server for me
> >
> > Then past that, my normal spam filters catch 95% of the
> rest, so for
> > me the signal to noise ratio is still ok
> >
> > There was a thread not too long ago about making posts to
> subscribers
> > only, and the final word was that goes against quite a few
> principles
> > of founding members, etc.
>
> I don't care about spam; I understand their point of view,
> although I may
> hace a different opinion. But I think we repect each other on
> this issue.
>
> The viruses is an entirely different (and principal) issue though.
>
> I believe that your Founding Fathers have a moral obligation to take
> responsability for what they are multiplying into the
> cyberworld, and the
> fact that their mailing list is being abused to proliferate
> potentially
> dangerous information, which has been crafted with the sole
> purpose of
> damaging other people's hardware and software, and nothing else.
>
> The Founding Fathers cannot hide behind a "Freedom-Of-Speech"
> banner and walk
> away from that responsability, that's my point. In fact the
> mailing list is
> responsible and perhaps even legally liable for deliberately
> letting this go
> on, in spite of the obvious danger that the members are being
> exposed to.
>
> Z.
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users_at_lists.freeswan.org
http://lists.freeswan.org/mailman/listinfo/users
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 04 2002 - 00:19:54 CEST