Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
I find it indicative that what I call outing a well-known and widely abused security hole, you call abuse.
The CyberDweebs at plaidworks.com also seemed to take great offense at my pointing out that what they called 'loopholes' in their system was actually a conscious, calculated decision to leave their system open to abuse so that every computer-illiterate Laker fan named Bubba could use his two-fingered typing skills to subscribe to 1,000 sports lists.
I also happen to have done a lot to bring computer networks and privacy technology to places and people who still wouldn't have had it otherwise - perhaps more than any "cypher punk".
Much of what you do goes unnoticed, due to the fact that many who make the same claims put you in their killfile. It seems that they are only in favor of 'politically correct' technology, without any social issues input or commentary.
I think Dale Thorn hit the nail right on the head when he described "cypher punks" as security people. They want privacy technology only for their paying customers, and only if the customers use it "responsibly", i.e. don't say something the 'punks find objectionable.
I've attended punk-rock concerts where some of the 'punks' complained loudly and vociferously about the slam-dancers. "Hey, that guy 'bumped' me." "Somebody could get hurt." "Who do they think they are?" ('Punks", perhaps?)
People who voluntarily submit to censorship by Sandy deserve pity.
Or deserve 'censorship'. Toto