-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Message 53: - From owner-cypherpunks@toad.com Mon Nov 1 10:35:58 1993 From: James Still <still@kailua.colorado.edu> To: 'Cypherpunks List' <cypherpunks@toad.com> Subject: RE: Nazis/Privacy/Cypherpunks Date: Mon, 01 Nov 93 09:08:00 PST

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.

[Stuff Deleted] 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: - -> Let me make clear that I do not (gadzooks appropiate here) condone any Nazi security measures. My point was more to provoke thought about how Nazi security techniques would pan out in the information age. Again, the question, did they work, is debateable. <-

[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.

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. - -> I interpreted your ground up analogy incorrectly. I do believe that ideas should be examined and reassembled. I just think it's silly to rule out anything that might have merit. (I guess I'm just determined to be flamed here on the merit of anything Nazi) <- - -uni- (Dark) --- still@kailua.colorado.edu -------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLNc0/BibHbaiMfO5AQFrXwQAoxfek4YivmYGsAc21mS6LrRLqTkDXrB1 62o+te0Fge3k2drHiC9oKPEXGa3Aid6/Td3HjDb7IjFsXvAlyD6P/x4IXtVw1W2J Tb2CnwoNl0mz171iLIjHIHAWcfDqwzU5mYgPb1T5XyntgFJTJ966tvEIYhhfkvcH nU5EVDMsdyo= =nSBc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----