On 9/3/16 2:41 PM, juan wrote:
On Sat, 3 Sep 2016 14:14:13 -0700
"Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net> wrote:
On 9/3/16 1:30 PM, juan wrote:
On Sat, 3 Sep 2016 14:41:52 -0400
grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
[1]
"The Cypherpunks mailing list is a mailing list for discussing
cryptography and its effect on society."
incomplete, and you didn't even provide a 'source'
plus, it's obvious that you haven't read the 1992 - ~1998
archives of the list.
Archives? We read it in real time.
Who - the fuck - is we. My message was addressed to grarpamp. I
bet he didn't read it in real time.
The not (ignorant and immature) crowd. That's we.
If it isn't directly about the access to or effects of cryptography
and related security practices, it is off topic.
Because an absurdist like you says so.
Your definition of absurd is absurd.
Early on, the list was largely about making sure that we had
unfettered access to encryption and reasoning about the consequences
of that. This was important for ecommerce, the Internet in general,
the boundaries of the First Amendment, and as the baseline for the
rest of the world. All kinds of power grabs were in play, directly
from the FBI and others. A weak response might have left us in a
position difficult to unravel. Most of that came out OK,
Exactly what a US establishment puppet woud say.
So let's see :
1992 :
"Computer technology is on the verge of providing the ability
for individuals and groups to communicate and interact with
each other in a totally anonymous manner. "
I wonder if Tim May is embarrased at having mande such a
blatantly wrong predicion.
He wasn't wrong. Anonymous communication is fairly easy now. But
for most of us most of the time, there is no need. That's the real
revolution, although off topic. That we have options and methods is
on topic.
" Interactions over networks will be untraceable, via extensive
re- routing of encrypted packets and tamper-proof boxes which
implement cryptographic protocols with nearly perfect assurance
against any tampering."
Where are such networks operating?
Government networks work that way. Others generally can use less
intensive solutions to get a good enough result. Do you think that
anyone savvy and not a target of anti-terrorism has trouble
communicating securely?
We should keep examining theory, writing code, finding good
solutions. There are definitely interesting problems left. My
favorite thought experiment:
Instead of weak centrally controlled communication systems that can
be accessed, broken, leaked widely: A distributed system that is
secure from abuse, yet able to expose communication that some
important subset vote to expose. Instead of threatening violence,
threaten exposure within the rules of a self-regulating system.
That's on topic.
What we do have is completely sabotaged hardware courtesy of
Intel Inc, a criminal organization that May had something to
do, I believe.5but there
are always ongoing concerns and implications.
Worry about whatever you want to worry about.
Oh...
Arguing whether the end of the world is coming or whose fault it is
or who is making political or military mistakes is all completely off
topic.
Sure. It's especially important that the political 'mistakes' of
the american nazis be completely 'ignored'.
Completely off topic. And ignorant. But especially off topic.
sdw
sdw