Re: crypto anarchy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Count on it. Things are moving much too slowly on "our" side. Entities like AT&T, Warner, etc. stand a good chance of controlling much of what becomes "the net" in the future, if much of this technology is not:
1) in place and functional 2) easy to use by the clueless and lazy as well as techies 3) accepted for use within the network, indeed considered *part of* the network both as "flavour" and technical specifications 4) impossible to remove - no govt/corporate turning back of the tide
VERY soon. In addition the populace has to become aware of:
4) HOW to do all of this - easy "newbie" software is needed - plug-n-play 5) that privacy is possible. Most have forgotten this.
If we need this stuff out VERY soon, then there is a serious problem: Time-Warner, AT&T, etc. can afford to spend major $$$ on implementing technology, including having employees work on these projects full time, while the cypherpunks work that goes on is largely on a part time basis by otherwise employed professionals, or students. Not to insult anybody; each contribution in anonymous mail, digital cash, dc-nets, crypto software, etc. is GREATLY appreciated. However, the progress that has been made still has a fun oriented research and development slant. But all the same, if what you are saying is that these volunteer/hacker types have to battle for the future of the net, there's no way. I mean, look at all the stuff Phil Zimmerman went through to put out one crypto program. Can you expect anybody else to do the same? Many volunteers have spent countless man-hours working on PGP, and by no stretch of anybody's imagination is it "plug-n-play" ready. I can't tell you how many announcements of upcoming Windows PGP front-ends I've seen. I'm sure many hobbyists are working on it as much as they can, and I'm glad, but these people can't be expected to compete with real software development efforts. A software company that wants to make "plug-and-play" easy to use crypto software which meets #1 and #2 - including integration into popular mail software - will bury PGP or RIPEM by sheer numbers. Most people fall into the "clueless and/or lazy" category.
There's a lot of work to do.
The Wired article may have called cypherpunks "millionaire hackers", but I don't think the majority of this list can afford to work on cypherpunks stuff full time like it probably needs to be worked on. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQBVAgUBLMRcPcOOfkF1iwTdAQE7ygH+OixoYSJBqiH5HbLj4TSjnEaUJINZlndk /zBYfigU0hFYB12rEpI1MBsqep9DNSzR4aOqyQMz4WQ45ayBCp4ekw== =kQBw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
If we need this stuff out VERY soon, then there is a serious problem: Time-Warner, AT&T, etc. can afford to spend major $$$ on implementing technology, including having employees work on these projects full time, while the cypherpunks work that goes on is largely on a part time basis by otherwise employed professionals, or students.
Hadn't meant to sound alarmist. By "VERY soon" I mean, within the next couple of years.
Many volunteers have spent countless man-hours working on PGP, and by no stretch of anybody's imagination is it "plug-n-play" ready. I can't tell you how many announcements of upcoming Windows PGP front-ends I've seen. I'm sure many hobbyists are working on it as much as they can, and I'm glad, but these people can't be expected to compete with real software development efforts. A software company that wants to make "plug-and-play" easy to use crypto software which meets #1 and #2 - including integration into popular mail software - will bury PGP or RIPEM by sheer numbers. Most people fall into the "clueless and/or lazy" category.
Yes, this is so. The problem however is not just that PGP is difficult. The entire UseNet/Internet experience is too difficult for the average person, who probably doesn't even know which end of a diskette to insert first. The media conglomerates will bring a filtered and [surprise!] TV-like version of the net to households and offices, that will be simple and easy, point and shoot. Useless, censored, commercialized to the point of saturation. I don't see any room for privacy in a network like that. *That's* what we're up against. Sure, no one can afford to write cypherpunks code full time, but what can be done should be done, and hopefully people will collaborate more. Every tool that makes it easier to integrate is a step in the right direction. The various scripts and utils that people have come up with for PGP use on "the" net, GenMSG for Fido mail, the menu/shell programs, it's all a step in the right direction. -- -=> mech@eff.org <=- Stanton McCandlish Electronic Frontier Foundation Online Activist & SysOp "A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." -JFK NitV-DC BBS 202-232-2715, Fido 1:109/? IndraNet 369:111/1, 14.4V32b 16.8ZyX
Yes, this is so. The problem however is not just that PGP is difficult. The entire UseNet/Internet experience is too difficult for the average person, who probably doesn't even know which end of a diskette to insert first. The media conglomerates will bring a filtered and [surprise!] TV-like version of the net to households and offices, that will be simple and easy, point and shoot. Useless, censored, commercialized to the point of saturation. I don't see any room for privacy in a network like that. *That's* what we're up against.
The candy-like "family oriented" overcommercialized network is already here, known as Prodigy. Those guys will bounce your email if you say "I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale" (implying gullibility) for posting commercially. My subscription to those losers didn't last two months. Last that I heard, Prodigy was losing money, hope they go broke.
Sure, no one can afford to write cypherpunks code full time, but what can be done should be done, and hopefully people will collaborate more. Every tool that makes it easier to integrate is a step in the right direction. The various scripts and utils that people have come up with for PGP use on "the" net, GenMSG for Fido mail, the menu/shell programs, it's all a step in the right direction.
Agreed. So far as I know, there are a few commercial services that don't censor their customers and aren't afraid to let them have full access to the Internet, such as the WELL and Colorado Supernet. Doug | Doug Holland | Proud member of: | holland@beethoven.cs.colostate.edu | Mathematicians Against Drunk Deriving | Finger for PGP 2.2 key |
douglas craig holland () writes:
Agreed. So far as I know, there are a few commercial services that don't censor their customers and aren't afraid to let them have full access to the Internet, such as the WELL and Colorado Supernet.
Panix and Digex doesn't censor either and they allow full access. I would bet that netcom doesn't care either. -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- EE/Math Student | politics is the implementation of faith. -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | - Zetetic Commentaries --
Thus didst Ray rise up and spake forth:
Panix and Digex doesn't censor either and they allow full access. I would bet that netcom doesn't care either.
Don't be so sure. I heard that a netcom user was thrown off for posting cat torture messages in rec.pets.cats, among other things.
-- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- EE/Math Student | politics is the implementation of faith. -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | - Zetetic Commentaries -- -- Jeff Kyser PGP 2.3 public key available via finger jkyser@netcom.com "Here we are now, entertain us." - Nirvana
participants (5)
-
an42035＠anon.penet.fi -
holland＠CS.ColoState.EDU -
jkyser＠netcom.com -
rjc＠gnu.ai.mit.edu -
Stanton McCandlish