This week's issue of time shows Time's Senior Technology Editor Philip Elmer-DeWitt completely baffled as to why he received mailbombs along with President@Whitehouse.gov.
"The first thing I learned was how little I knew about Internet mailing lists," he writes.
Most people who were *on* a mailing list received several copies of the e-mail message below, and have a pretty good idea why President@WHiteHouse.gov was mailbombed. (PED's indifference to mailing lists clearly shows he doesn't understand how modern news stories bubble up from the grass roots rather than from the top down. Time's Senior Technology Editor fails to grasp the mediuim he purports to cover.)
As the mass-circulated piece of chain mail shows, since it was a protest on legislation against "CYBERPORN", there's a logical reason why PED would targeted for mailbombs.
A fact which will never appear in the Time magazine story.
I abhor chain letters, but this one I'll make an exception for. > To whomever may read this, > > This is not a typical chain letter, in that by passing it on to as > many people as you can, you are taking part in what may yet become the > world's biggest practical joke. The U.S. Government has recently > passed an act which enforces censorship on the internet. A group of > internet users has now come together to kick back at this oppression, > and have a bit of fun at the same time. >The aim of this exercise is > to re-establish the United States as "The land of the Free", not a > fascist state where freedom of speech and thought are curtailed. > Communist Russia fell as a result of s uch limits being placed upon > the minds of the general populus. On receiving this letter, please > pass it on to as many friends or E-mail lists as you can. We predict > that if everybody copies the lette r to 5 other addresses, by February > 29th 1996, this letter should have reached in excess of 2 million > people. That's when the fun begins........ >On February 29th, please > send the message: > > > Dear Mr. President, > Do you remember this: > > And afterwards enclose the pre-typed copy of the Bill of rights. By > sending the letter on the date above, you will contribute to either > one huge petition for freedom, or else lead to a crash of the > whitehouse server.Send all letters to: >President@Whitehouse.gov > > Remember that solidarity is the key to success !!!!! > > THE BILL OF RIGHTS > > Amendment I > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or > prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of > speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to > assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. > > Amendment II > > A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free > state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be > infringed. > > Amendment III > > No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without > the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be > prescribed by law. > > Amendment IV > > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, > papers, and > effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be > violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, > supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the > place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. > > Amendment V > > No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise > infamous > crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except > in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when > in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any > person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of > life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a > witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or > property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be > taken for public use, without just compensation. > > Amendment VI > > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a > speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and > district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district > shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of > the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the > witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining > witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his > defense. > > Amendment VII > > In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed > twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no > fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of > the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. > > Amendment VIII > > Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor > cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. > > Amendment IX > > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be > construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. > > Amendment X > > The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor > prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states > respectively, or to the people.
Philip Elmer-DeWitt (email@example.com) wrote:
: David, you're confused. Snyder is referring to the Feb. 29 protest : mailing, not the March 4-5 listserv attack. I know the Secret Service was : called in after March 5 because the guy who runs the White House e-mail : system told me.Even so: the White House called in the Secret Service....to clear an e-mail box.
Don't you see how sensationalistic it is to report that?
In addition, you keep insisting these are separate events. The protest was Thursday, the Secret Service was called in Tuesday. Haven't you seen the page that says "Don't black out your Web page...black out theirs!" The well-publicized page calls for a general strike.
I received the text of the Web page from one of those "mailing list"
Subject: Re: Is PED lying? (Was: From TIME: Elmer-DeWitt Gets Spammed)
Date: 16 Mar 1996 14:58:03 GMT
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Seth Finkelstein)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage, alt.culture.internet, alt.culture.usenet, misc.news.internet.discuss
>In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org (David Cassel) wrote:
>> Even so: the White House called in the Secret Service....to clear an
>> e-mail box.
>That wasn't what I said, although I can see now that that's how it reads.
Uh ... OK.
>The White House called in the Secret Service not to clean out their e-mail
>box but to investigate the matter and try to find out who did it. They say
>that the perp not only denied e-mail service to the President, Vice
>President and First Lady, but he or she made it impossible for the Secret
>Service to scan the mail for threats to the President.
You don't really believe that, if those people even have e-mail, those are their actual e-mail addresses? Yes, yes, I know you could say "I'm just reporting the statement being given by a staffer" (who is obviously at the same level of knowledge ...), but c'mon, it's gullibility like this that's one reason all the net stories get so garbled. If the Secret Service could scan the mail before, why couldn't they scan it now? Surely they didn't read every message personally before? This smells to me like someone (not saying it's you) trying to come up with some outlandish reason to justify the effort they want to expend.
But I have got to shake this delusion about journalists asking obvious questions, much less tough ones ...
Seth Finkelstein email@example.com
Disclaimer : I am not the Lorax. I speak only for myself.
From: Rahul Dhesi
Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage,alt.culture.internet,alt.culture.usenet, misc.news.internet.discuss
Subject: Re: Is PED lying? (Was: From TIME: Elmer-DeWitt Gets Spammed)
Date: 16 Mar 1996 20:23:46 GMT
Organization: a2i network
In <4iektr$g4k@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> firstname.lastname@example.org (Seth Finkelstein) writes:
He could have said that but he did not -- not in his TIME article.
> But I have got to shake this delusion about journalists asking
>obvious questions, much less tough ones ...
I'm not sure which is worse:
PED making an outlandish claim as an assertion of fact and therefore
appearing to be an idiot;
And I'm not sure that the first being true in the TIME article, and the
second being true on Usenet, is reassuring at all. It is to be hoped
that what journalists write in their print articles will be consistent
with what they post on Usenet.
or PED quoting the White House making an outlandish claim, without questioning the claim; thus making it appear that both the White House people as well as PED are idiots.
"There is no problem created by a 'journalist' that can't be solved
by about ten meters of rope and a point to haul up to."
-- email@example.com (Francis A. Ney, Jr.)
New Content Every Day!
Philip's Filter Lesson
The Mysterious Phone Call
Send comments to firstname.lastname@example.org. All comments are assumed for publication.