RE: Nazis/Privacy/Cypherpunks
Personally, I don't rule out examination of Nazi tactics as a worst case scenario model. Let's face it, as ugly and dark as Nazi rule was, they did some things quite efficiently indeed.
[...]
To rule out Nazi approaches, especially when dealing with intelligence and counter-intelligence issues (which IMHO is basically what cypherpunks is all about on some level or another...) is plain silly. Current intelligence practices are
If I understand your basic point to be: "consider the worst possible scenario in order to better prepare for it" then I agree completely. However I have serious reservations with emulating or (gadzooks!) *admiring* those Nazi tactics that seemed to "work" because I would disagree that, first they actually did work, and more importantly, that their ends justified the means. Which brings me to your second point:
[Note 2] No one writes code from "the bottom up" in the manner that you suggest. If that were the case we'd see the wheel invented time and time again. One of the reasons this mailing list exists is to accomplish exactly the opposite. That being to incorporate common or even fringe ideas into the development of code for the common purpose (The Prize as you adeptly put it.) so we don't HAVE to build from the ground up every time.
I disagree. (Semantics check: I'm not talking about a mouse driver or a basic windowing interface here. Obviously, there's no need to hammer out that wheel again.) I am talking about what I see as a basic cypherpunk mission, that being, "the constant reevaluation of the approach towards privacy." We have the ability to constantly rip apart our own ideas, like children's ABC blocks, and see if they fit back together again in a better way. I would prefer to see constant rewrite's of a "given" (like PGP for instance) than to stagnate and rely on the one idea, concept, or proof just because we've always done it that way. Our code should be like our ethics: constantly re- evaluated, questioned, and tested for validity. --- still@kailua.colorado.edu --------------------------------
This seems as good a time as any to remind folks of Godwin's Law, which represents one of my earliest net.meme.hacks: ----- Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. ---- --Mike P.S. You may also be interested in the corollaries, which shed some useful light on the dynamics of online discussions: Gordon's Restatement of Newman's Corollary to Godwin's Law: Libertarianism (pro, con, and internal faction fights) is *the* primordial netnews discussion topic. Anytime the debate shifts somewhere else, it must eventually return to this fuel source. Morgan's Corollary to Godwin's Law: As soon as such a comparison occurs, someone will start a Nazi-discussion spinoff thread on alt.censorship. Sircar's Corollary: If the USENET discussion touches on homosexuality or Heinlein, Nazis or Hitler are mentioned within three days.
participants (2)
-
James Still -
Mike Godwin