I am slightly dubious of the wisdom of Tim's switch-and-bate on a.b.p.e.c. for a couple of reasons: a) The possibility of some media nitwit hearing about the initial post and missing Tim's "retraction" (or ignoring it in the interests of a great big ol' byline). Nightmarish possibilities abound, particularly given the subtle nature of the "clue" in the PGP block. b) In a more paranoid moment some months ago, I predicted that the NSA would be waiting for a chance to work a PGP angle into some sensational story that creates a lot of public outcry. Linking PGP to terrorism, drug dealing, or kiddie porn would be a great first step towards getting some laws against "unlicensed cryptography" on the books. I'm less worried about Tim giving the TLAs any ideas (I'm sure they have lots of bright "media relations" people already) than I am about him inspiring real pornographers (or agent provocateurs). c) Personally, I think that the fewer excuses one gives busybodies to "make policy", the better. However, what with Clipper, Markey, Gore, Denning, Sternlight, et al, the cat's already out of the bag. We can only sigh and wish that these beknighted ones had viewed with alarm the excess profits and price gouging of the haircutting industry, and the need to balance unbridled free enterprise with the tonsorial rights of the public. However - tickling a few neurons may very well have been worth the risks noted above. In response to Tim's later post about freedom of speech, J. Eric Townsend writes:
[flameage censored]
In arguing the fine points of Dworkinism, pornography, capitalization of proper nouns, etc., I think Eric misses Tim's point, which is (I think) that the current movement of society is from Forbidding actions that cause harm to others to Forbidding actions and speech that might offend others, or make them uncomfortable, or hurt their feelings. This is an obviously not a happy thing. While not offending others is an admirable goal, I am going to disagree with Tim May if he claims that he can levitate given the right mix of ginseng, pig knuckles, and spiritual harmony. Tim may be emotionally crushed by this, but that's life. If things keep on the way they are, in a few years, Tim will have the option of taking me to the Spiritual Tribunal and having me busted for emotional assault, where I'll be sentenced to three to five years at hard consciousness-raising. There's an excellent article on this issue by Jonathan Rauch in the April 93 issue of 'Reason'; this is an excerpt from his book "Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attack On Free Thought". Rauch's thesis is that the very humanitarian goal of making sure that nobody's feelings are hurt is incompatible with the free inquiry and lively discourse that are necessary parts of a free society. To those of you who think "it can't happen here", I would refer you to Canada's "hate speech" laws, which make it a criminal offense to "promote hatred against an identifiable group". To date, the only well-known charges under these laws have been against couple of Holocaust revisionists; however, the definitions of "promoting hatred" and "identifiable group" are vague enough to make this country a somewhat dangerous place to have unpopular views, even disregarding the tremendous leverage this law gives governments to step on anyone who gets too far out of line. "It's the First Amendment, stupid." -- Steve
Steve Neal makes some very good points:
a) The possibility of some media nitwit hearing about the initial post and missing Tim's "retraction" (or ignoring it in the interests of a great big ol' byline). Nightmarish possibilities abound, particularly given the subtle nature of the "clue" in the PGP block.
I agree, which is why I ended the charade. (And I would've ended it sooner had I gotten any strange phone calls, suggesting a reporter sniffing around, or threats to report the posting to the cops. I did get a few strange messages suggesting Netcom should yank my account.) But the interesting thing is how paranoid people are about free speech being exercised (the free speech being posting of non-provably illegal material, not the posting of provably illegal material). I won't repeat my point about a nation of politically correct sheep.
However - tickling a few neurons may very well have been worth the risks noted above.
Yes, perhaps thinking about some issues in advance is a good "drill." (For some reason, I seem to gravitate toward these "early warning" situations...it was me who posted the first message about Dorothy Denning's key escrow system, last October ("A Trial Balloon to Ban Encryption?"), and I also posted the fake "Stealth Secrets" article in cypherpunks, anonymously. The intent was to test the commitment of the list to the much-talked about "whistleblowers" group and to the likey implications. (Sure enough, several people freaked out and called for censorship--as if anonymous whistleblowing can be censored! I 'fessed-up after several days, pointing out the material came from a published book and some Aviation Leak material.) Steve then makes some really excellent points:
In arguing the fine points of Dworkinism, pornography, capitalization of proper nouns, etc., I think Eric misses Tim's point, which is (I think) that the current movement of society is from
Forbidding actions that cause harm to others
to
Forbidding actions and speech that might offend others, or make them uncomfortable, or hurt their feelings.
Yes, exactly! This is a profound shift from the principles on which this country (apologies to Brits, etc.) was founded.
To those of you who think "it can't happen here", I would refer you to Canada's "hate speech" laws, which make it a criminal offense to "promote hatred against an identifiable group". To date, the only
And France and Germany have both used "hate crimes" as "hate groups" as justification to ban certain groups from existing.
well-known charges under these laws have been against couple of Holocaust revisionists; however, the definitions of "promoting hatred" and "identifiable group" are vague enough to make this country a somewhat dangerous place to have unpopular views, even disregarding the tremendous leverage this law gives governments to step on anyone who gets too far out of line.
Good points, but the so-called "Holocaust" never actually happened, hence there cannot be any such thing as "Holocaust revisionism," just the telling of the truth. While the Nazis were not perfect, this nonsense about extermination camps was just Allied propaganda (confirmed by documents declassified in 1967) designed to embarass the Nazi "Huns" and to hide the mass exodus of Jews, who stole the wealth of Germany and took it to New York to set up brokerage and banking firms like S.G. Warburg and the Rothschild Bank. Every true researcher knows this. (This little joke could be enough in Canada, as Steve points out, to at least threaten me, and perhaps the machine this message originates to the List from. Most likely not (the Canadians concentrated on long-time activists), but the _threat_ is there. And this threat is coming down to the U.S.) Understand that the real threat to the Jews in Germany was not so much hatred of the Jews (of which there was probably less in Germany than in France and other European countried until Hitler began stirring up hatred and staging events to trigger mass hatred) as it was the unbridled power of the Nazi state. Civil rights were suspended, the courts fell under the control of Hitler's people, and "law" became whatever the government wanted. Ironically, with "hate crimes" as a prosecutorial tool in the 1930s, Hitler could have used the laws to prosecute Jews (especially Orthodox Jews, with different fashion styles and a dislike ("hate"?) for many Gentiles. The real threat is the government, whatever its initial intent. They have the guns, they have the courts, they have the power. We've sunk into a strange situation in which various special interest groups jockey for special privilege, special powers granted to them by the State. "Live and let live" doesn't mean one has to _like_ all the various individuals or groups that are out there, it just means you let them do their thing as long as they don't interfere with your own life. You can't pass laws to force others to like you, or your group, or to make their thougths conform to yours. About all you can really do is make sure they can't rob and kill, and even that's iffy. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.
Summarizing the important bits from Timothy's Post ...
But the interesting thing is how paranoid people are about free speech being exercised (the free speech being posting of non-provably illegal material, not the posting of provably illegal material). I won't repeat my point about a nation of politically correct sheep.
However - tickling a few neurons may very well have been worth the risks noted above.
Yes, perhaps thinking about some issues in advance is a good "drill."
.... and ....
Steve then makes some really excellent points:
In arguing the fine points of Dworkinism, pornography, capitalization of proper nouns, etc., I think Eric misses Tim's point, which is (I think) that the current movement of society is from
Forbidding actions that cause harm to others
to
Forbidding actions and speech that might offend others, or make them uncomfortable, or hurt their feelings.
Yes, exactly! This is a profound shift from the principles on which this country (apologies to Brits, etc.) was founded.
.... plus more ...
The real threat is the government, whatever its initial intent. They have the guns, they have the courts, they have the power.
We've sunk into a strange situation in which various special interest groups jockey for special privilege, special powers granted to them by the State.
"Live and let live" doesn't mean one has to _like_ all the various individuals or groups that are out there, it just means you let them do their thing as long as they don't interfere with your own life.
You can't pass laws to force others to like you, or your group, or to make their thougths conform to yours. About all you can really do is make sure they can't rob and kill, and even that's iffy.
--Tim May
-- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.
Okay. I agree with most of the post above. I also thought that Tim's "child- porn" exercise was both useful and amusing. These two stories below are some more examples of political correctness gone wrong. The first concerns David Irving, well-known right-wing revisionist "historian". Mr. Irving wanted to do a lecture tour in my country of residence, Australia. The government banned his entry, on grounds of racial hatred and the like. This decision has immediately criticized my a sizeable majority of the newspapers, with the prevalent view being "He's got appaling viewpoint, but he should be permitted to be heard." I am not certain whether the decision has been reversed or not. I'll have to get back on the subject. Personally, I agreed with the newspapers on that subject (but of course not on others....) The second story is more amusing. I don't know how many people on the list have seen the movie "Romper Stomper", or even if it has been released in America (from which most of the list resides). For those who don't know, Romper Stomper concerns a gang of Nazi skinheads who live in Melbourne. Most of them are unedu- cated scum, although their leader, Hando, although twisted, is quite intellegent and charismatic. The film concerns the decline of the group, both through the action of some Vietnamese immigrants (who fight back for a change), and the police. The film, like the skinheads, are quite violent. The film (from what I could gather) portrayed the skinheads in an unflattering light. None of the cast or crew advocated Nazi ideology, and especially not Russell Crowe, who played Hando. This didn't stop the British Anti-Nazi League from picketing the film when it was shown in England. They seemed to have gathered that it was a very naughty film indeed, although how they got their selective myopia I don't understand. Fortunately, the picket was a failure. Most of the Australian expatriates told their friends to see it, and they told their friends, und so weiter. Okay, political correctness is a dangerous thing. Note that I didn't say bad, just dangerous. I do agree that racism, sexism and homophobia are bad things, so I do sympathize with most p.c. objectives. But mostly I have not found any strong evidence for legislative strategies to enforce these objectives (with one exception ... see below). Fortunately their are ways to defuse this dilemma without legal wrangling. Firstly, a lot of terms (although not all) which started out as a symbol of demonizing have turned out to be words of pride. Examples are Nigga (as Niggas with Attitute) and Dyke (as in Dykes on Bikes, which are always prominent in the Sydney Gay Pride Festival, among other places, and whoops, I forgot to mention "Gay"). This is of course imperfect ... I don't think the word "Faggot" is used very positively, and as for such words like "Slag" (slang for women), the less said the better. Of course, as a white male heterosexual (or Breeder, whatever you prefer), I don't encounter much discrimination, so I am not as knowledgeble (sic) as some people. Still, when people can use _some_ of these words in a humerous fashion (as opposed to offensive), things look brighter. The second point is immediately related to the last point - humour. If you are not going to ban the bastards from speaking you can at least make fun of them. After all, it is part of YOUR right to speak. As an example, in Australia some judges have been under fire for making stupid comments at rape trial. Some people have called for their dismissal (which is a bit extreme). However, a lot of comics have been satirizing their judgements, and the jokes have even occured on two comedy shows: "The Late Show" and "Full Frontal". (After all, can you say the phrase "No means Yes" with a straight face anymore ..?) For the third point, I admit that it does fall into the category of legal wrangling. It is this - remove all legislation that limits the powers of a minority. Fortunately, most of this work has already been done in most Western countries. Still, examples do exist. Queensland (my state) decriminalized homosexual behavior among consenting adults only three years ago, and legislation still exists in Tasmania (although it is "not enforced"). Also, until recently, several cantons in Switzerland didn't give women the right to vote in local elections. I leave you to think of local example. (Note - maternity leave for women is NOT an example of limiting the power of a minority.) (Aside, I think the talk of the change of focus to "forbidding speech that hurts others" is exaggerated, or at least in Australia. (Obviously most of you know more about America than I do). My impression was that some of the local focus is on "giving more freedom to consenting adult, as doing otherwise encourages police corruption. Our state is currently going though a review of it's Marijuana legislation, and the stuff is already decriminalized in South Australia. Also, we've got more liberal censorship laws than America.) The final point. Obviously removing stupid discriminatary action (calling people by rude names, etc.,) is a laudible aim. This can (of course) occur in different ways. For example, some poor soul might fall foul of the p.c. brigade, not though nastiness, but through naivete (like using the term "chairman"). I was once called a hypocrite because I believed both in capitalism and small-l liberalism (by a socialist, no less). What's the big weapon for change? Well, it's powerful, but sometimes quite undependable. It's called time. Believe me, you need a lot of it to affect social change; revolutionary change leads almost always to tyranny. Still, a lot has happened in the last 30 years. It was only in 1966 that Australian Aborigines were given full citizenship, and currently we are in the middle of the aftereffects from the Mabo land claim decision. In a lot of ways, the world has got worst as well as better. Still, when the conservative elders die, you can only hope that their children have kept the good things, and rejected the bad things, of their parents. I'll have to end it there. I want to have lunch. Whoops, this is going to a list primarily concerning encryption! What will I say? Got it ... "Stop the Clipper chip!" I hope it will keep em' happy ... Cheers for now. Peter. -- ============================================================================= Peter Murphy - Department of Electrical Engineering,|Phone: 61 - 7 - 300 3452. University of Queensland: murphy@s2.elec.uq.oz.au .|------------------------ "Contrary to popular belief, the wings of demons are|Please do not put any the same as the wings of angels, although they're |Heinlein quotes in your often better groomed." - Terry Pratchett. |.sig - they're old. =============================================================================
participants (3)
-
murphy＠s1.elec.uq.oz.au -
sneal＠muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca -
tcmay＠netcom.com