It is truly counter-productive to insist on conspiracy theories and anti-government rhetoric. Sure, there have been conspiracies in the past. Sure, there have been more than our fair share of atrocities.
However, the real issues are privacy, security, freedom of speech, and effective policy enforcement. When we start calling names like "jack booted thugs" and the like, we are sinking to the same low levels that Freeh and (more appropriately) Gorelick use when they cry wolf and foretell futuristic electronic meltdowns.
More importantly, while the public is cynical and skeptical, it isn't exactly embracing the right-wing militia movements either. It would be a great disservice to the cause if cypherpunks were, in the minds of the public, tightly associated with the likes of Timothy McVey.
Not at all. We need more people shouting from the mountain tops at what are governments are doing.
I do believe we need to get more visibility on the seriousness of the issues. I don't think the average person understands why it was so hard to conspire against the people before the telecommunications age, and why it "could" (not necessarily "would") be now. There is a lot of knowledge to pass on before someone can truly appreciate the extent of the need for privacy and freedom protections. While it is bad that the extent of the body of knowledge turns off most people's willingness to learn, the sheer vastness of the task of setting up this infrastructure also makes it very difficult for the NSA or any other agency to become the secret puppet master. Not that they have not been trying. But to accuse them of necessarily harboring evil purposes is not only counter-productive, but most probably incorrect. Most public sector servants are not the New World Order loonies that the militia's have been prepared to fight. It would be safe to say that the NSA, the CIA and the FBI are filled with mostly red-blooded Americans with solid allegiance to the basic principles which you and I cherish. The questions is, why have 3 branches of government? Why have multiple conflicting agencies for any given task or goal? Why not just choose a "good guy" once and for all and let him (or her) do the "right thing"? It's not that we don't trust him when we first elect him. It's a question of what he would do with that power? And those that succeed him? That is why we don't "just trust them". It's too bad that we can't hold Reagan responsible for Iran-Contra just because he's presiding over the executive branch at the time. After all, we expect him to be responsible (whether he knew about it or not). Why not drop all these stupid laws that PREVENT the citizens from suing the government for incompetence?
We are not as free as we were 10yrs ago. We are not as free as we were 100yrs ago. Hell we are not as free as we were under King George over 200yrs. ago!!
I seriously doubt you "long" for the King George days. If you do, well, we are just not in the same universe.
The issue of cryptology is only one area of attack on our freedoms. Just one small piece in the Big Picture. Below are some of the some of the trends we have to look forward to:
National ID's: Tracking of movement of all citizens: Display of documentation for all Public transport: Display of documentation for Employment: Electronic Cash: Automated Drift-Net Fishing of Phone conversations: Federal Thought Crimes:
Have you ever consider the possibility that maybe ... just maybe ... the government really IS as incompetent as it is reputed to be? Consider this ... If you were a know-nothing beaurocrat, how would you run a large institution? Top-down? Probably. Gather as much info as you can? Of course. Require that everyone trust your judgement (a la "executive priviledge")? Naturally. If there were guaranteed political opposition, no matter what you do, would you just push for more power/priviledge/money in everything you do? Damn right! Especially if you don't know how many of these things you push for will be won ... Oh, and there is this minor problem with some of these methods clashing with the Constitution ... Oh bother! I'm simply saying that it natural for the branch of the government primarily responsible for law enforcement and national security to care deeply about that side of any issue. If I were president, I would play the same political games Clinton is playing. A president is not just responsible for the specific free speech of programmers or specific privacy rights of individuals. He is responsible for a much bigger picture. It just so happens that, in our nation, we value "individual" liberty much more than anything else (including anybody else's "big picture"). Therefore, there are a lot of people against the more obvious methods of invasion of privacy. But let's face it, the public just isn't very informed or consistent on the topic; it is just easily swept up in hysteria.
I was born a free man, in charge of my destiny, with inalienable right endowed by my creator. I will not be made a slave of the state but will fight and die a free man.
You were born to your mother and father, who are members of a society which has long built up imperfect infrastructures for surviving and thriving on the land which it depends. If you were alone in the vast American plains, you can claim you have infinite rights, and no one would disagree with you. You, your mother, your father, make trade-offs everyday on your purest rights versus your practical rights. Your purest rights are mostly given lip service, and then where it matters more, protected by gentlemen's agreements, sometimes backed by force. But the right itself is not enforced by any real means. It is the threat of punishment that keeps the right from being violated. Cryptography is one of those interesting areas where, for once, man can prove, for all practical purposes, that there is a hard limit somewhere that he can draw. More importantly, it is also genuine protection of a "right", specifically, a right to privacy, which society previously protected using the old methods (threat of punishment). Imagine a line in the sand ... if you cross it, someone shoots you in the leg. You can still cross it, but you'll suffer the consequences. With cryptography, you cannot cross it, no matter what you do. This brings into question whether or not it was useful (to you and to society) to shoot you MOST of the time, but not if you present a good reason to cross it first. THIS is the interesting part of all of this. I don't like to see this issue drowned out by all the conspiracy talk (which no one on this list is in any position of proving or fixing unilaterally). Ern