The c'punks vote on continuing the "they" topic: 1 yes 1 maybe 1 no 2^512,000 plonks The "plonks" have it, but to hell with them. ----------------------------------- Responding to msg by wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204) on Thu, 18 Aug 8:46 PM
From: Hal What does it mean to speak of a government in cyberspace? It is the government in physical space I fear. Its agents carry physical guns which shoot real bullets.
........................................................
Without cryptography, all you've got left is security by obscurity, the main technique used by the hackers in the book; even cryptographic systems need strong enough implementations built around the mathematically-strong parts to be truly safe.
Bill's suggestion about obscurity through strong crypto as a defense against real bullets is a provocative version of "the pen is mightier than the sword" homily. That rephrasing of the topic seems to be a good way to mix software and hardware issues that originated the "they" topic. Is it possible for mind stuff and its gadgets to beat the tools of physical violence? It seems that is what this list is about. Jim Dixon's elegant disquisition (and that of other respondents) on the rise and fall of governments is less persuasive than his (and others') remarks, say, on the NSA spy machine where he (and they) shows nitty-gritty expertise. I vote for the nit-grit as more pertinent to Hal's "real bullets" problem. Sorry, but geo-political bullshit apologizes for real killers of all political bent, in power or out. Geo-pol is overdone by talking heads who sound numbingly alike. The distincitive sound of crypto and techno stuff is what charms here, because it's rarely heard in public venues. We got to take responsibility for our individual actions, day by day, and resist the delusionary temptation of hallucinating on great problems to mask our daily marginalization. Ahem. John