Greg Broiles writes:
I propose that this sort of discussion - about whether or not, in the face of violence and tragedy, some aspect of human freedom and expression can be suitably "justified" to satisfy every self-appointed devil's advocate - is absolutely unproductive and serves only to suck energy and concentration from more interesting projects.
It's astonishing that you should say this. It is at exactly this time that soul searching is most appropriate. Now is when you should ask yourself: Am I doing the right thing? Am I making the world a better place? You don't have to convince some devil's advocate. Just convince yourself. You're about to begin running a remailer. Apparently you haven't done so before. Well, it should be quite an education. Keep it up for a year and you'll be more qualified to judge whether this technology is good or bad, on balance. One thing is certain: if you go into it just because you think it will be an "interesting project", you won't stay with it for long.
"Nomen Nescio" wrote:
It is at exactly this time that soul searching is most appropriate. Now is when you should ask yourself: Am I doing the right thing? Am I making the world a better place?
You don't have to convince some devil's advocate. Just convince yourself.
"Nomen" assumes facts not in evidence. Those of us who have been on Cypherpunks for years--including Greg--have already done that appropriate "soul searching." It is because we have come to the conclusion that we are making the world a better place, that we support strong crypto. "Nomen's" moral uncertainty sounds like a personal problem to me. S a n d y
At 12:20 AM 9/14/2001 +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote:
You're about to begin running a remailer. Apparently you haven't done so before. Well, it should be quite an education.
Ah, no. Try a Google search for "remailer@ideath.goldenbear.com", and you'll find plenty of references to the remailer I ran in 1994-1995. (I don't remember when I started - there's a reasonable chance it was in the fall of 1993, but honest remailers don't keep logs . . ) I think remailers are ideally run either by people/organizations with very few resources (so they're not attractive litigation targets) or substantial resources (so they can defend themselves vigorously & aggressively vs. litigation) and right now I find myself somewhere in between those two poles. Nevertheless, the events of the past few days have changed the risk/benefit ratio such that I believe the risks of inaction on my part are worse than the risks of acting.
Keep it up for a year and you'll be more qualified to judge whether this technology is good or bad, on balance. One thing is certain: if you go into it just because you think it will be an "interesting project", you won't stay with it for long.
I'm going into it because I think it's important to provide actual and symbolic support for freedom and privacy when those values appear to be under attack by people like you, who would assume the title of "conscience" and "protector" in order to render people helpless, practically or legally. If you're still hung up on judging whether technology is "good" or "bad", you're not ready for this list, nor are you qualified to discuss policy beyond deciding what color the balloons and streamers should be at the homecoming dance. -- Greg Broiles gbroiles@well.com "We have found and closed the thing you watch us with." -- New Delhi street kids
Nomen wrote, replying to Greg: --------------- You're about to begin running a remailer. Apparently you haven't done so before. Well, it should be quite an education. Keep it up for a year and you'll be more qualified to judge whether this technology is good or bad, on balance. One thing is certain: if you go into it just because you think it will be an "interesting project", you won't stay with it for long. --------------- LOL. Greg ran a remailer long before you apparently knew what a remailer was. Greg, as most of us who first subscribed to this list in 93 or 94, undoubtedly long has made up his mind as to the societal and individual benefits of encryption technology and remailers. What I find puzzling is where along the way we picked up the fair-weather "Cypherpunks" who are still grappling with Nomen's questions. Even more puzzling is that the discussion of crypto vs. safety is taking place at all. Crypto is out there, never to return back into the folds of governmental or law enforcement control. The horse had left the barn in the early 90's. It is /long/ gone. Even if the US were to outlaw the use of unescrowed encryption by every resident of the this planet today, it would have *zero* impact on the availability of strong crypto to criminals and terrorists. Banning crypto would not increase anybody's safety. Except perhaps the safety in office of dictatorial incumbent politicians. Which is no concern of mine. Of course, those calling for a ban on strong crypto are fully aware of this undeniable fact. Preventing terrorists from using crypto is not their objective, increasing the safety of you and me is not their goal. It is controlling our speech and thoughts that they are after. But they get there without the cooperation of the gullible. Resist! --Lucky
On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 09:47:05PM -0700, Lucky Green wrote: | It is controlling our speech and thoughts that they are after. But they get | there without the cooperation of the gullible. "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity." I really don't think that most of those calling for restrictions on our freedoms are after controlling our speech and thought. They're scared, and they're reacting. But I think that many of them are acting out of the finest of intentions. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume
participants (5)
-
Adam Shostack -
Greg Broiles -
Lucky Green -
Nomen Nescio -
Sandy Sandfort