Major Variola writes:
I don't know about your anecdote, but Mr. May's original point was that the law *requires* companies to forget. Which is of course an illegitimate intrusion of the state into private affairs.
And the responsibles need killing.
No, they don't. There are two alternative solutions to the problem of restrictions on information flow, or more generally restrictions on any sort of voluntary and cooperative activity. One is to use force to fight back, even to the point of killing the perpetrators. This is what you are advocating when you say they "need killing". The other is to evade the restrictions. This does not involve killing, force, or violence of any sort. Cryptography is an ideal tool for this purpose. It allows people to communicate and exchange data even when outsiders want them to stop. Via digital cash they can even contract together, and buy and sell information and services. BlackNet is intended to be an example of how this could work. The point is that BlackNet and other early Cypherpunk concepts were intended to be based on the second approach, that of avoiding restrictions via cryptographic protections. BlackNet does not seek out and kill people who try to shut it down. It simply continues to exist and operate, very profitably, despite the efforts of its opponents. In a world where things like BlackNet can exist, the people who want to stop it don't need to be killed, because their actions are ineffective. We don't kill the crazy men who rant and rave in parks and on sidewalks. We may pity them, we may even try to help them, but we don't kill them. Similarly, if Cypherpunk technology succeeds, those who try to stop communication from occuring will be no more important or effective in achieving their goals. This stuff should be Cypherpunks 101. Not even that; it should be Kindergarten for Cypherpunks. Re-read (or read for the first time!) the Cryptoanarchist Manifesto. There's nothing in there about killing those responsible for restricting freedom. Rather, the entire essay is about how the new technologies will allow people to communicate and interact with privacy and security. The same is true of the Cypherpunk's Manifesto; again, it is about using software to defend privacy with cryptographic anonymity. There's no bloodlust in either of these essays. These were the founding documents of the Cypherpunk movement. It was only after many years that some Cypherpunks took a detour into advocacy of violence. In large part this was due to the influence of Tim May, who as time went by became increasingly bitter and hateful. Perhaps he had personal disappointments; in particular it seemed that the failure of his more apocalyptic Y2K predictions was an embarrassment which he took to covering with bluster and rage. May became a loud, authoritative and dominating voice calling for violent retribution against government agents or anyone whom he saw as a threat or enemy. Inevitably, he brought into the list people who felt the same way, and drove away many who could not stand the anger and hatred which were being expressed so openly. His increasingly common racist rhetoric, whether sincere or merely provocative, played a further role in sending away some and, sadly, drawing in others. The community changed, until today Cypherpunks are known as a community which sees that its enemies "need killing". It's almost a defining characteristic. The original goals of cryptoanarchy, privacy, anonymity, reputation systems, and efforts to explore the underlying technology, are largely forgotten. But now it seems that there might be an opportunity for change. With the departure of Tim May, a cloud seems to have lifted. Perhaps it will be possible to reinvigorate the community, to give it new purpose and new goals. At a minimum, can we try to move beyond defining ourselves by how many enemies we think "need killing"? That was never what Cypherpunks were supposed to be about.