At 5:54 PM -0500 12/30/96, Bovine Remailer (Red Rackham, apparently) wrote:

At 5:15 PM 12/29/1996, Timothy C. May wrote:

...

It may be time for us to go underground. It may be time to take much, much, much, much more extreme steps. This fascism is unacceptable.

While Tim May has had many many great ideas, this is not one of them.

To paraphrase Joseph Stalin: Tim, how many divisions do you have?

I'd say remailers have been a pretty powerful weapon in our arsenal, as have been offshore sites, the "anarchy" of the Net in general, and, of course, PGP and other such programs. The government clearly views strong cryptography as a weapon, as a munition. More on this later.

The cypherpunks have virtually no force at all. If the battle is moved to that arena, the cypherpunks (and everybody else) lose big time. If the cypherpunks manage to pull off some sort of "extreme step", those who aren't shot while resisting arrest will go to prison. Worst of all, most people will applaud the action. "Extreme steps" legitimize the radical proposals of the Clipper crowd.

I gave up on trying to "appear reasonable" long ago. Take it or leave it. "Extreme step" doesn't mean doing anything that is traceable to a particular person, and certainly doesn't mean doing militia-type things to physical buildings or the criminals who work in them. Rather, pushing for things like violating the ITARs, which we do. (Bill Frantz noted, tongue in cheek I think, that Cypherpunks do not adovacate breaking such laws. Well, this is of course absurd. Our whole focus on steganography, on remailers, on carrying CD-ROMs out of the country, etc., is basically advocating various circumventions of USG laws.) Gilmore's SWAN (getting machine-to-machine links widely encrypted) is another "extreme step." As to our "reasonableness," I make little effort to hide the fact that I support strong cryptography because it means that the plague of democracy and "mob rule" can be turned back...I view crypto anarchy as an elitist development, one which the ubermensch will appreciate, but the masses will recoil in horror from. Fuck the herd.

The right approach is to continually reiterate that the cypherpunks are mainstream and fairly conservative. Many of us like the "bad boy" image, but most of what has been proposed is very solidly rooted in American traditions.

But most of the active voices here are simply *not* "mainstream" and "conservative" (except in some senses).

If the ITAR regulations can be amended to make discussions on this list a "conspiracy", then they are very likely unconstitutional. Article I, Section I, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the United States..."

Careful, Red! Would it make you happier with the ITARs if Congress passes a law enacting the regs? It won't make me any happier.

We should not underestimate the broad public support for private communications which exists in the United States. Even people who are unfamiliar with the issue are shocked when they learn that the U.S. government is trying to gain access to all communications.

I agree. But there are plenty of forums (fora) for "reasonableness" (some would say namby-pambyness). EFF is one such "reasonable" forum. Our focus is more radical. We are effectively a cyber-militia, fulfilling Jefferson's recommendation that a revolution happen every 20 years. (Funny, there hasn't been one in more than 200 years. Jefferson would likely be shocked. And the Founders who revolted over comparatively miniscule tax rates imposed by the King, would surely be stunned by the 50% or more in taxes paid by many or even most taxpayers. And the laws of all sorts.)

The only people who want GAK are in the government. There is no constituency in the population which wants it, and quite a few that do not. The more publicly the issue is discussed and the more actively we scrutinize the lies and deceptions of the U.S. government, the more successful we will be.

Red Rackham

I'll continue to be radical in my views. Nothing wrong with extremism in the defense of liberty, as some wise men said. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:

"Timothy C. May" writes:

...

I'll continue to be radical in my views. Nothing wrong with extremism in the defense of liberty, as some wise men said.

Of course, "cypher punks" are opposed to liberty. Have you noticed that the only crypto-relevant thread in weeks is about protocols to stop free speech?

Could it be that most "serious" list subscribers are "security people"? And who are the people in the U.S. who are most abusive of individual rights and freedoms? Voila. Hence the heavy emphasis on preventing this and that....

"Attila T. Hun" writes:

::As to our "reasonableness," I make little effort to hide the fact that ::I support strong cryptography because it means that the plague of ::democracy and "mob rule" can be turned back...I view crypto anarchy as ::an elitist development, one which the ubermensch will appreciate, but ::the masses will recoil in horror from.

::Fuck the herd.

yes, and that is why there was a Robespierre and a Madam Defarge. do you wish to be the first to be strapped to the board?

your elitism is crap; if you know it and persist, you are asking to lose the "war" with the Feds; if you don't know it, you're just ignorant. you are doing nothing except feeding your own ego in the hope of winning one battle and establishing that self-same elitism.

either your "elite" stoop to the level of the 'herd' you so glibbly label 'Fuck the herd,' and enlist their support of *their* rights to free speech, or you might as well invite Bubba into your living room after the advance party has taken your much touted hardware and your clips of hollow points "for public safety." and what do you say to the most corrupt and despicable President in our history? "Fuck the herd?!"

You and Bubba can hold hands, dancing around the room, jumping up at down, screaming "Fuck the herd!" "Fuck the herd!"

"Cypher punks'" opposition to free speech is another good example of their elitist attitude. They only want freedom to express the ideas they agree with. Not only is the notion of supporting freedom to express idea they don't like totally alien to "cypher punks"; they actively seek to promote censorship. Indeed the only crypto-relevant thread on this mailing list in many weeks was a "pseudo-crypto" discussion of protocols to suppress free speech and to limit the expression to views approved by the cocksucker John Gilmore. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Bill Frantz wrote:

At 10:54 AM -0800 12/31/96, Timothy C. May wrote:[snip] I would say that the street action which effectively eliminated legally mandated racial segregation about 25 years ago qualifies as a revolution. People certainly put their bodies, and occasionally their lives, on the line for it. It didn't happen because the political powers that be decided to do it. It happened because people mobbed in the streets and made it happen. The same argument applies to the actions which forced the withdrawal from Vietnam. With the end of the cold war, and the ensuing reduction in need for the entrenched national security establishment, we may be ripe for another one. I personally hope our government will continue to show that it is civilized by keeping the blood shed to a minimum.

I'll tell you exactly what they'll show. They are a *lot* more hardened to civil unrest than they were at Kent State, etc. This time, as in the late 1970's, the leaders, organizers, and other influential people will be removed, one way or the other. Dissidents will be allowed, as long as (like Chomsky) they're not a real threat.

Again, can anyone tell me how I can stop receiving this mail. I have to stay off for a month and I am afraid I will not be able to read it. Thanks & Happy New Year On Wed, 1 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:

Bill Frantz wrote:

...

At 10:54 AM -0800 12/31/96, Timothy C. May wrote:[snip] I would say that the street action which effectively eliminated legally mandated racial segregation about 25 years ago qualifies as a revolution. People certainly put their bodies, and occasionally their lives, on the line for it. It didn't happen because the political powers that be decided to do it. It happened because people mobbed in the streets and made it happen. The same argument applies to the actions which forced the withdrawal from Vietnam. With the end of the cold war, and the ensuing reduction in need for the entrenched national security establishment, we may be ripe for another one. I personally hope our government will continue to show that it is civilized by keeping the blood shed to a minimum.

I'll tell you exactly what they'll show. They are a *lot* more hardened to civil unrest than they were at Kent State, etc. This time, as in the late 1970's, the leaders, organizers, and other influential people will be removed, one way or the other. Dissidents will be allowed, as long as (like Chomsky) they're not a real threat.

Timothy C. May wrote: | >The cypherpunks have virtually no force at all. If the battle is | >moved to that arena, the cypherpunks (and everybody else) lose big | >time. If the cypherpunks manage to pull off some sort of "extreme | >step", those who aren't shot while resisting arrest will go to prison. | >Worst of all, most people will applaud the action. "Extreme steps" | >legitimize the radical proposals of the Clipper crowd. | | I gave up on trying to "appear reasonable" long ago. Take it or leave it. | | "Extreme step" doesn't mean doing anything that is traceable to a | particular person, and certainly doesn't mean doing militia-type things to | physical buildings or the criminals who work in them. | | Rather, pushing for things like violating the ITARs, which we do. (Bill | Frantz noted, tongue in cheek I think, that Cypherpunks do not adovacate | breaking such laws. Well, this is of course absurd. Our whole focus on | steganography, on remailers, on carrying CD-ROMs out of the country, etc., | is basically advocating various circumventions of USG laws.) | | Gilmore's SWAN (getting machine-to-machine links widely encrypted) is | another "extreme step." | | As to our "reasonableness," I make little effort to hide the fact that I | support strong cryptography because it means that the plague of democracy | and "mob rule" can be turned back...I view crypto anarchy as an elitist | development, one which the ubermensch will appreciate, but the masses will | recoil in horror from. | | Fuck the herd. Crypto anarchy is not an elitist development, nor is 'equalizing.' The privacy and tax avoidance features of crypto anarchy are already available to the very wealthy, as Unicorn can doubtless explain. They are not available to the moderately wealthy, nor are they easy to take advantage of. I'll declare victory the day McSwitzerland starts advertising for business in the pages of Newsweak. Cheap, easy, universal access to the techniques of tax avoidance, binding contracts with escrowed bonds in jurisdictions with unemasculated contract law mean that things available only to the very rich are available to anyone who chooses to use them. Tim sees this as eliteness, since those who gain will be self selected. I see it as a democritization of privacy, one the 'masses' will be glad to be involved with, if its presented properly. (See 'The Great Simoleon Caper' for more on proper presentation.) Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

Bill Frantz wrote:

At 10:54 AM -0800 12/31/96, Timothy C. May wrote:

...

Our focus is more radical. We are effectively a cyber-militia, fulfilling Jefferson's recommendation that a revolution happen every 20 years.

(Funny, there hasn't been one in more than 200 years. ...

I would say that the street action which effectively eliminated legally mandated racial segregation about 25 years ago qualifies as a revolution. People certainly put their bodies, and occasionally their lives, on the line for it. It didn't happen because the political powers that be decided to do it. It happened because people mobbed in the streets and made it happen.

Cryptoanarchy, as envisioned here, is not about people mobbing in the streets. It's fundamentally about insulating oneself from the mobs in the streets. When Tim says he's an elitist, he means it, though of course we may disagree on who is allowed to be part of our "elite." I wouldn't exclude people who find the most extreme "satire" in the "ebonics" threads, for example. However, revolutions tend to have unintended consequences. The noblemen who drafted the Magna Carta never thought it would become a broad statement of rights. The slaveholders who signed the Declaration of Independence never thought it would be used against them. If crypto becomes ubiquitous worldwide, I doubt Tim May's ilk will enjoy the result. In the short term, it's a defense that preserves the distribution of wealth and privilege, but in the long run, we'll see that eroded. There is something to Vulis's latest rants -- his "facts" are all lies, of course, but there's something there. Lies, evasions, and deception give temporary advantage, but eventually they come back home to roost. Sometimes it takes generations. The things that last are the ideas that make people mob in the streets, not the things that enable them to hide at home. -rich

It's always sad to see another sometimes-reasonable (though sometimes foaming) writer go down the Detweiler-Vulis route, e.g., by making his arguments hinge on calling me "Timmy" (what _is_ it with this nickname that makes it so damned attractive to Vulis, Vlad, and Attila?). At 8:14 AM +0000 1/1/97, Attila T. Hun wrote:

your elitism is crap; if you know it and persist, you are asking to lose the "war" with the Feds; if you don't know it, you're just ignorant. you are doing nothing except feeding your own ego in the hope of winning one battle and establishing that self-same elitism.

....

I didn't fight in foreign wars for this crap from an 'American.'

Actually, the war you apparently fought in was of course a total waste. This is too well known to repeat here. Making rhetorical arguments hinge on the notion that you fought in some god-forsaken war in the middle of nowhere is absurd. You were just cannon fodder, a pawn in the geopolitical chess game, a means of enhancing certain political careers...though you ultimately let them down, as LBJ chose to bow out, and Nixon resigned. You were playing your role, Attila! As for my "elitism," I've never presented myself in any other fashion. I've discussed this issue many times. Get used to it, or ignore it, or just keep foaming at the mouth and ranting about how I need to take "yellow pills" to avoid being an ally of "Bubba." --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:

"Timothy C. May" writes:

...

I'll continue to be radical in my views. Nothing wrong with extremism in the defense of liberty, as some wise men said.

How about extremism in the defense of moderation?