On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Nomen Nescio wrote:

When you were asked where were all the supposed wealthy freedom fighters in communist controlled regimes, you came back with Osama bin Laden.

Do you think that bin Laden, if he succeeded, would bring in an era of enlightened government supporting individual liberties?

No. Would that chnge my assertion that he is "a freedom fighter"? Also no. His is fighting for the freedom of his peoples to follow the path that THEY so choose (whether or not I find that path to be a personally acceptable one is morally irrelevant).

The man is a religious fanatic.

As is George Bush and half the congresscritters. As have been a great number of supreme court "justices". As are a very large number of "minor" court "justices". Painting your target with this brush does nothing to forward your argument.

He is associated with the Taliban in Afghanistan, which he helped put into power.

Along with the very considerable help of these United States of Fscist Freakazoids.

This is the same Taliban which has destroyed priceless cultural treasures because they were not Islamic,

We've never done anything like that now, have we?

forbids women to work or attend school,

Granted, we've gotten somewhat better in this respect, but then we've had a longer period to try - and yet we are _still_ a helluva bad example (using the rest of the "free world" as a backdrop).

and sends armed police to attack when men and women eat in the same room behind closed doors.

And we send in armed police to attack when they see a ranch they might like to own through a forfeiture setup. Or when the "know" of men and men "eating" behind closed doors, etc. You are listing off a menu of items that we as a whole may consider to be unacceptable, and then attempting to transfer this distaste to the target of your disaffections. This is both a normal and IMHO, acceptable practice (seen as a simple promulgation of ones personal opinions). However, using this personal distate as an indicator that the rest of the world somehow aggrees with you (apparently in direct proportion to the level of distate expressed), is bogus.

Oh, and last week they banned the Internet.

At least they are being HONEST about it, no? Here (USA) we are making every attempt toeffectively implement the same policy, although via different means ("chilling" such use with the arresting of victims by your hated armed police, mock trials and very heavy sentences).

Osama bin Laden, a perfect poster child for the cypherpunks

In very many ways, there is not a better example that could have been picked.

We're definitely not seeing the same "big picture" if you think he is a good example of someone cypherpunks should support.

Agreed. Your picture is personal in the extreme, where as your tormentor is looking in the global, and with smaller blinders. May I suggest some light reading? "The Clash Of Civilizations and the Remaking Of World Order" by Samuel P. Huntington, $14.00 in trade paperback, ISBN 0-684-84441-9 -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomen Nescio replied to Tim May: [...]

You need to read your own posting more carefully:

...

Draw this graph I outlined. Think about where the markets are for tools for privacy and untraceability. Realize that many of the "far out' sweet spot applications are not necessarily immoral: think of freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes, think of distribution of birth control information in Islamic countries, think of Jews hiding their assets in Swiss bank accounts, think of revolutionaries overthrowing bad governments, think of people avoiding unfair or confiscatory taxes, think of people selling their expertise when some guild says they are forbidden to.

You yourself were the one who raised the issue of morality. Your examples were intended to be cases of "sweet spot" (that is, profitable) applications which were also morally acceptable. It is entirely appropriate in that context to examine whether these examples meet the test of both being profitable and moral.

[...] You miss the point. All that is needed is for someone, somewhere, to find these things desirable. It doesn't have to be you or me. We might think they are immoral but that changes nothing in practice. Or do you think that Muslims or Socialists or Greens or Zionists or the IRA or the CIA or the ETA or Presbyterians or Monsanto or whoever *you* dislike this week are incapable of choosing technology appropriate to their own perception of their needs?

When you were asked where were all the supposed wealthy freedom fighters in communist controlled regimes, you came back with Osama bin Laden.

Do you think that bin Laden, if he succeeded, would bring in an era of enlightened government supporting individual liberties? The man is a religious fanatic. He is associated with the Taliban in Afghanistan, which he helped put into power. This is the same Taliban which has destroyed priceless cultural treasures because they were not Islamic, forbids women to work or attend school, and sends armed police to attack when men and women eat in the same room behind closed doors. Oh, and last week they banned the Internet.

All true, they are shits. And violent, well-armed, cruel, frightened, shits at that. But, in this context, so what?

Osama bin Laden, a perfect poster child for the cypherpunks.

Said who? Actually he is a bit of a bogeyman & 90% of what he is accused of is just US propaganda looking for a new enemy to justify the continuation of cold-war military budgets - but there are other guys, like the Taliban, who really are that nasty - one of the endearingly cute things about US politics is that you get collectively confused when people don't like you so you assume they are being duped by evil criminal masterminds, so you find it much easier to deal with the concept of a Dark Lord in the East than you do with the idea that millions of people actually hate and fear the USA for good reason. And it was the US government that funded the Taliban to start with (with a little help from their friends in Pakistan).

We're definitely not seeing the same "big picture" if you think he is a good example of someone cypherpunks should support.

You aren't seeing the picture at all if you think anyone much here was suggesting that you should support him. All that is being proposed is that people in that position really want the kind of technology we've been talking about, some of them are able to pay for it, so the chances are they are going to get it, and someone might make money out of it, and that will fund further developments. You don't have to think that is a *good* thing, you might think it is a very bad thing indeed, but you do have to deal with it. Ken