From -uni- (Dark):

Freedom of information, and nil transaction cost in anonymous settings is key in empowering the individual and securing individual rights. Obviously the goal will conflict with modern intelligence agencies that seek to attempt domestic monitoring, but I think everyone here needs to address the role of such agencies in the grand scheme of things. Is the cypherpunk position a lawless one, or one promoting the evolution of law? .................................................... 1. What if the cypherpunk position was one or the other; what effect would it have on the subscribers, or upon the law itself? How much do those on the list allow themselves to be affected by other's positioning, and how much could anyone with influence in the law really care? 2. Jeff Davis has mentioned in a past message that the electronic war against the "enemies of freedom" (intelligence agencies) would be mostly a psychological war (or something to that effect). I am concluding that he must have been attempting to accomplish something like this by his act of sending out that NSA manual to all. On the subject of psychological warfare as a method in this privacy effort, I was pondering: . the effectiveness of the tactic employed . the character of the intended recipient of the message . how it will be interpreted by them . predicting whether they will care, in the same way as the sender, about the purpose & content of the message Since the communication is mostly words framing thoughts and philosophical arguments, the effects that one can aim for will be either cognitive or psychological (hopefully achieving both). To aim for a psychological effect only, is to propose that you know so much about psychology, that you know precisely what to aim for - in the minds of all of the recipients, and to expect predictable results. However: . people will often sense when they are being targeted . if they do, they will be resentful at being the object of someone's attack . they may respond in an unpredictable manner different from what was intended, if the total factors involved are more than are known or can be successfully controlled by the attacker . if the intent is only to involve others as elements in the attempt, they can also become angry for being enmeshed in crossfire for a purpose which is not of their own choosing (i.e. being used) and be unconducive to the success of the intent. In the attempt to persuade, convince, convert others from their position which is offensive to one's own, the methods employed are typically negative: pointing out the adverse consequences, pointing out what is wrong with what is being done, pointing out how bad/lousy/wrong/mistaken the offending party is, etc. But it has occurred to me that part of the problem with the effort to defend the dignity of one's "rights" is that there is so much more negativity than positiveness brought into play in the proffered arguments. What impresses me as lacking in the vision of the offending parties is a picture of 'normality'; they're suffering from visions of abnormal motivations. ( I mean normality in the sense of having a "sense of life" which allows for the expectations of normal activity & thought in the average person.) To present only negative insights about the problem to those who propose the disagreeable methods by which they seek to solve it, is to only push the imagination further into the black hole of deficiency. What is lacking in the mind of that type of psychological target is a perspective on what is normal to a regular human being. So how could positive indicators to the rest of life be given; how could a vision of what else is true about real people be created, so that the perspective of those targeted individuals or agencies is offered something better to think about than the problems created by a few out-of-control types; so that their outlook on the subjects of their attention (in this case, the citizens of the US) is not composed only of visions of delinquency and aberrant behavior? It is a challenge to "maintain one's head while all about one, others are losing theirs". Yet not only is that what is needed, but the agencies supposedly charged with our welfare could also use some help in maintaining *their* rationality. They apparently need some support to the end of acquiring confidence in our judgement (the rest of us who are not members of the elite, the chosen few). They are alarmed by the potential threat of destruction of a system which they prize as the means to social stability. What would reduce their felt need to cover the world with wiretraps in order to make sure that they don't miss any loose cannons out in the mists of the wild electronic atmosphere? What could provide that sort of reassurance, that everyone is not going to begin using their liberties in wanton, uninhibited, juvenile ways against the system or against each other. What could provide evidence contrary to the agencies' conclusion that non-government employees do not have what it takes to make rational decisions about the toys & tools and other devices which they create for their own amusement. Considering also: agencies do not by themselves create the man, but vice versa. That is, just because an agency exists, because it has been created for a particular purpose, it does not follow that the people hired to function within it no longer have a recognizable human nature similar to everyone else's [that's part of the problem :>) ]. They also must bring their own personality and character to what they do, however unlikely it seems that they would have the opportunity to do so. If this were not so, then there would be no reason to think that one could argue with them at all. It would be better to give up the effort of communicating with them or attempting to affect them psychologically, since they could not be expected to understand anyway; it would be better instead to think of other methods for achieving the preferred manner of existence. There would be a great benefit to a psychological type of warfare, if it could achieve points for the potential to normality which exists in everyone; if it could present evidence to counter the argument that the individual cannot be trusted, that we need to be saved from each other (by the intelligence agencies). What could bolster their lack of confidence in the judgement of the general population, such that the conclusion made to use the services of these agencies would be proved unnecessary? This would be demonstrated by the kinds of actions taken by individuals in response to the threats against their privacy. To wage a psychological war is to assume a great responsibility for the impressions made upon those who will be judging the behavior of their "charges". The psychological warriors would be taking part in the creation of a picture of the population, the effects of which would be a determining factor in the decisions made for future policies. It is very easy to take exceptional cases and use them as examples upon which to base techniques implemented for the cause of safety. It could hardly be expected that a limited few would have the resources to accomplish the goal for everyone, of saving the image of the individual against the one-dimensional cyclops (within our own lifetime); it is questionable whether any individual should associate themselves with the burden of such a responsibility. Blanc