Suffused with boredom, Lucky Green wrote,
Nomen wrote: --------------- What are the roles of we who provide technology that aids terrorists as well as honorable people who seek the shield of privacy? Do we bear a share of the responsibility for the deaths and other consequences of terrorist attacks such as we have seen today? ---------------
No. The chicken are merely coming home to roost. No surprise there.
Sure, but whose chicken? Maybe our own policies and beliefs have turned against us, to our detriment. There have been a number of reports that bin Laden uses cryptography and even steganography tools. This could still have a significant crypto connection. But if not this time, then next time. Sooner or later a catastrophe will happen due to our technology. Most people's worries seem narrow. "Will I get in trouble? Will the software be banned?" What about, "Should I be a contributor to the murder of thousands? Should I be promoting technology which could lead to a backlash against freedom?" Some terrorists have exactly this as their goal. They are hoping to trigger a counter-reaction, an over-reaction, by the authorities. They want to see a crackdown on liberties, a police state. This will weaken the enemy and demoralize him. It will increase hostility and make the population less willing to support the government. Perhaps some readers share this view. Tim May, spiritual leader of the cypherpunks, has expressed support for the actions of Timothy McVeigh in murdering schoolchildren in Oklahoma City. He has frequently called for the killing of every resident of Washington, D.C. Will he now speak out in favor of the death of tens of thousands in New York City? Perhaps, for him, this is the true cypherpunk goal: promote murder and catastrophe in order to trigger a spasm of Western totalitarianism, hoping that the state will then self-destruct. If so, then laws like the DMCA and SSSCA should be welcomed with open arms. Likewise with prosecutions for pornography and, even better, bans on software technologies. These measures work hand in hand with the responses to terrorism in strengthening the control of the state over the individual. Those few remaining cypherpunks who cling to the original goal of freedom, privacy and liberty, should face the moral issues squarely. A case can be made that the technologies we favor are a positive force in the world, even though they can be used for destructive means. But there are arguments on both sides, especially in a world where a few people can use the shield of anonymity to coordinate actions that lead to massive deaths. The point is, cypherpunks must face and accept the responsibility for the harm their technologies can cause, as they should also feel pride in the positive effects. And they must be able to show, at least to themselves, that the positives outweigh the negatives. At least, unless they are taking Tim May's view of the world, where no deaths are too many and the blood of innocents ushers in a welcome new age of tyranny.
On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 06:00:46PM +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Some terrorists have exactly this as their goal. They are hoping to trigger a counter-reaction, an over-reaction, by the authorities. They want to see a crackdown on liberties, a police state. This will weaken the enemy and demoralize him. It will increase hostility and make the population less willing to support the government.
This is nonsense. I suspect the bin Laden want the U.S. to stop handing Israel billions of dollars a year in aid and weapons. Not bombing pharmecutical plants and lifting an embargo that kills hundreds of thousands (allegedly) of Iraqi women and children might be a nice move too. -Declan
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Sure, but whose chicken? Maybe our own policies and beliefs have turned against us, to our detriment. There have been a number of reports that bin Laden uses cryptography and even steganography tools. This could still have a significant crypto connection.
So fucking what? I'm sure he also uses toilet paper and soap, cellphones, pens and paper. Hey, let's ban those too. If a terrorist uses such items, heaven forbid should anyone else be allowed to lest they be likened to a terrorist!
But if not this time, then next time. Sooner or later a catastrophe will happen due to our technology.
Oh, you mean like Hiroshima or Nagasaki? Oh well, let's just shit on Uncle Sam for inventing the nuclear weapons before Germany could. Nah, we should have idly stood by while Germany built their own nukes, that way you couldn't blame "our technology"
Most people's worries seem narrow. "Will I get in trouble? Will the software be banned?"
I think at this time, and I don't speak for most people - I'm simply using my own views and extrapolating, that most people are glad they are alive and breathing. Most people are pissed and want retaliation. Most people aren't thinking "Hmmm, maybe I shouldn't use crypto, the telephone, mp3's or the radio because they can also be used by terrorists."
What about, "Should I be a contributor to the murder of thousands? Should I be promoting technology which could lead to a backlash against freedom?"
Hey two way radios, cell phones, pen and paper, ink, cutlery can be used against freedom. Do you see Gerber, the knife makers volutarily going out of business? Or whatever company made the plastic knives used in this attack because they were used by terroists? Did Ryder, the company whose moving van McVeigh used to bomb OKC shut down because their "technology" could be used by terrorists? Get a fucking clue you troll!
Some terrorists have exactly this as their goal. They are hoping to trigger a counter-reaction, an over-reaction, by the authorities. They want to see a crackdown on liberties, a police state. This will weaken the enemy and demoralize him. It will increase hostility and make the population less willing to support the government.
Perhaps, but I think terror is the ultimate goal, not a supression of freedom. Fear, uncertainty and doubt, not a loss of freedom are the aims of terrorists. After all if they were worried about freedom being such an important thing, their countries would have freedom, rather than the extreme religeous bans.
Perhaps some readers share this view. Tim May, spiritual leader of the cypherpunks, has expressed support for the actions of Timothy McVeigh in murdering schoolchildren in Oklahoma City. He has frequently called for the killing of every resident of Washington, D.C. Will he now speak out in favor of the death of tens of thousands in New York City?
Perhaps, for him, this is the true cypherpunk goal: promote murder and catastrophe in order to trigger a spasm of Western totalitarianism, hoping that the state will then self-destruct.
If so, then laws like the DMCA and SSSCA should be welcomed with open arms. Likewise with prosecutions for pornography and, even better, bans on software technologies. These measures work hand in hand with the responses to terrorism in strengthening the control of the state over the individual.
DMCA and SSSCA have to do with mp3's and videos. Not crypto. Now I'm 100% certain that you are a troll sent to demoralize this list against cryptology. Go fuck yourself.
Those few remaining cypherpunks who cling to the original goal of freedom, privacy and liberty, should face the moral issues squarely. A case can be made that the technologies we favor are a positive force in the world, even though they can be used for destructive means. But there are arguments on both sides, especially in a world where a few people can use the shield of anonymity to coordinate actions that lead to massive deaths.
The point is, cypherpunks must face and accept the responsibility for the harm their technologies can cause, as they should also feel pride in the positive effects. And they must be able to show, at least to themselves, that the positives outweigh the negatives.
Ok Mr. Troll, go and dig out the proof that said terrorists were cypherpunks. Go and dig out the proof that Diffie, Hellman, Rivest, Shamir, Adelman, Schneier, and Zimmerman were on those planes holding plastic knives. Fucking troll! If anything, you have a lot more in common with those responsible for this atrocy than you do with any freedom loving citizen of the USA. Or for that matter any cypherpunk. This was an attack against our liberty. Against our freedom. Perpetrated by those who hate liberty and would love to enslave their countries under severe religious laws. They hate us most of all because they believe our freedom is what makes us "The Great Satan" And you sir, are spewing the very same agenda they are. I suggest you turn yourself in to the FBI this moment for the terror monger that you are!
At 06:00 PM 9/12/01 +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote:
The point is, cypherpunks [metalsmiths] must face and accept the responsibility for the harm their technologies can cause, as they should also feel pride in the positive effects. And they must be able to show, at least to themselves, that the positives outweigh the negatives.
-- On 12 Sep 2001, at 18:00, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Maybe our own policies and beliefs have turned against us, to our detriment. There have been a number of reports that bin Laden uses cryptography and even steganography tools. This could still have a significant crypto connection.
Obviously this catastrophe could not have taken place without the unauthorized use of paper. Paper allows people to communicate dangerous ideas and secret messages. With paper, anyone can communicate to large numbers of people at once, even if they are not properly authorized or in authority. The solution is clear. Paper must be a government monopoly . Paper should only be used for government forms and official government statements. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG AX7IyUtEmXvrShOs/Y1uEELi2xLS9MvBdLhpNDcF 43NVXCeYgSl5wL3xCAajeDqKq7BHzzaaz6RUzAgow
participants (5)
-
David Honig -
Declan McCullagh -
jamesd＠echeque.com -
Nomen Nescio -
Sunder