From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Aug 1 16:06:17 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA05092 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 16:06:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.think.com (Mail1.Think.COM [131.239.33.245]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA05087 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 16:06:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Early-Bird.Think.COM (Early-Bird-1.Think.COM [131.239.146.105]) by mail.think.com (8.7.5/m3) with ESMTP id TAA05433; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 19:06:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from compound.Think.COM ([206.147.16.34]) by Early-Bird.Think.COM (8.7.5/e1) with ESMTP id TAA01584; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 19:05:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from alk@localhost) by compound.Think.COM (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA12090; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 18:05:34 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 18:05:34 -0500 (CDT) From: Tony Kimball Message-Id: <199608012305.SAA12090@compound.Think.COM> To: chuckr@glue.umd.edu Subject: rants [Meta-mail] Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk [This is meta-mail and may be immediately deleted without review by anyone with exclusively project-oriented interests.] 1) That's a huge exaggeration. It's true in exceptions, but calling it common is a lie, and just as bad as the original incidents. ^^^ It is with some trepidation that I post. I would have kept this message private, except that I feel this single word leaves me publically defamed, and so I feel obligated to respond in the same forum in the interests of preserving the utility (such as it is) of my public reputation. With this post, I feel that I have adequately defended my public reputation at this time, and I undertake to refrain from any further posts to the list on this subject, barring more substantive cause. (Advisory warning: The detail of this post may be excruciating for some readers.) alk contra chuckr ----------------- 1) That's a huge exaggeration. It's true in exceptions, but calling it common is a lie, and just as bad as the original incidents. A lie? I don't read the newspapers as a rule, and I never watch TV. Yet in the past 5 years I could cite *dozens* of similar instances. If my media-deprived ignorant condition can produce so many examples, reason tells me that there must be a large number of similar cases. A large number makes such common, to my mind. If you are being hit in a nerve by my statements, okay, express yourself, but I'd thank you kindly not to paint me a liar. Because I am not. "Deluded" or "ignorant" or "mistaken", I can deal with. "Liar" cuts off the possibility of dialog, at the personal level, and in a public forum defames my character. I urge that it only be used in instances where there is probable cause to believe that an intentional and manifest untruth has uttered without cause or quotation. Also, I would opine that lying to someone is *not* "just as bad" as killing them. 2) This list is hardly a reasonable place to post such, regardless of their truth. Go hit some usenet advocacy list. It was topically appropriate because the individual in question (and probably many other readers) did not appreciate the seriousness of the matter. A graphic description of the possible extreme consequences was entirely suitable to the education of non-US residents in the matter, which is a shared interest of the FreeBSD community in general and the hackers in particular, who are most effected by impact on sup servers and the like. 3) We all probably disagree to some extent with the US crypto laws, but calling mistakes to general attention sure isn't doing any good for the person asking for help, is it? That wasn't my point. While I do believe that the existing ITAR regulations remain (marginally) offensive to good sense, we agree that "hackers" is not in any wise an appropriate venue for rhetoric on this subject. The point was to explain the seriousness of the matter, because failure to understand it can materially hurt people. A small probability of great damage provides a mathematical expectation of loss equal to that of a proportionately larger probability of a proportionately smaller loss. That the scope of damage to which I alluded is at least improbable, I can agree. That it is entirely consistent with recent experience with the US Federal government is to me manifest, regardless of our shared distaste for this admittedly distasteful state of affairs. I estimated the expectation of loss to be greater in the marginal, extreme case, so I used that example to convey my point. Methinks I set the wrong tone with my intentional misspelling of America, and you might have recieved my post more hospitably in its absence. If so, I can clearly understand the effect, and sincerely apologize for the petty rhetorical ploy -- I was in fact wearing my heart on my sleeve, as it were. I shall certainly endeavour to be more circumspect in avoiding politically sensitive allusion in any future posts to "hackers". I have no more enjoyment of the noise of metamail than any other reader. Finally, lest the last paragraph should imply the "damn" of "faint praise", I am aware that other aspects of my text were similarly ranging into rhetorical territories all too likely to provoke primarily emotional responses. I need to think about that somewhat. (I have a hyperbolic style, and may need to temper it, although I would prefer not to do so if it is not strictly necessary. I thank you for providing an occasion for possible useful introspection.) //alk