Cypherpunks Charter
(Apologies for rehashing this, but it seems a good time to make another pass at consensus.) This is how I always thought about the Cypherpunks charter: Cypherpunks exists to promote free speech, establish that free speech includes the freedom to have secure private speech, and to explore how this can be accomplished. In support of this, to understand implications of technology-enabled free speech and the technical, commercial, and political moves needed to protect free speech. While the Cypherpunk Manifesto focuses mainly on predicting how the then-new ideas might play out, it is very thin on clarity of what should happen and what roles those present should play. I think that was intentional and strategic. It was also written at the beginning of a period of serious conflicts about using encryption at all, public knowledge of encryption and secure methods, export, government access and control boundary exploration, etc. What this does not include is promoting or bashing particular political systems or plotting their demise or constantly going on about insane nonsense. What is your concise summary of Cypherpunks? Can you justify it? What does the above get wrong and why? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism [2] http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html Recent commentary repeated for coherency, entertainment, and to forestall the need for certain predictable responses: Regardless of what Tim may or may not have wanted to happen in some or all cases, it doesn't say it in his signature, or in the manifesto. Cypherpunks has always straddled a number of areas; exploring the implications of crypto-anarchism is one of them. Even in May's quotes in [1], it isn't necessarily the point to have a collapse of a system as a goal, but to examine it as a possibility. I think the attitude is that if you come to believe that encryption and other security measures must be available, perhaps as an extension of free speech, and those cause weak or broken systems to collapse, then so be it. Some discussion of "* anarchy" isn't really anarchy, it is just maybe anarchy to someone fixated on a fixed definition of their favorite system. Or a signal by someone suggesting such a departure. Any real political anarchy has been a failure. The philosophokiddie cypherpunks are thoroughly punked and parodied in Mr. Robot: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-creator-of-mr-robot-explains-its-hackti... sdw
On 09/05/2016 12:21 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
Regardless of what Tim may or may not have wanted to happen in some or all cases, it doesn't say it in his signature, or in the manifesto.
He's saying it with his LIFE dude. Maybe you need to get one too? Ps. I've met Tim in passing over my 40 year residence in the area. Never even knew of his significance you know? I don't know if you've ever been to Corralitos, so I'll tell you EXACTLY WHY he's "gone all hermit with a gun". When he moved up there it was outlaw land in Santa Cruz County. Gravel roads, NO BEEMERS, they didn't want to chip their car's paint and gravel is rough on suspension parts et al. Pot growers everywhere. Last Chance Road, north of Santa Cruz was another such place. Above Boulder Creek ditto. The office crowd didn't want to live up some slightly improved logging road. Fast forward 2 or 3 decades of unchecked gentrification in the Santa Cruz mountains. Now he's surrounded... by people just... like... you. That's why he owns a gun. Rr
On 9/5/16 12:44 PM, Razer wrote:
On 09/05/2016 12:21 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
Regardless of what Tim may or may not have wanted to happen in some or all cases, it doesn't say it in his signature, or in the manifesto.
He's saying it with his LIFE dude. Maybe you need to get one too?
Do you think that you are clearly communicating? Do you suffer from some version of, as my friend used to say, "post 1960's perception disorder"?
Ps. I've met Tim in passing over my 40 year residence in the area. Never even knew of his significance you know?
I don't know if you've ever been to Corralitos, so I'll tell you EXACTLY WHY he's "gone all hermit with a gun". When he moved up there it was outlaw land in Santa Cruz County. Gravel roads, NO BEEMERS, they didn't want to chip their car's paint and gravel is rough on suspension parts et al. Pot growers everywhere. Last Chance Road, north of Santa Cruz was another such place. Above Boulder Creek ditto. The office crowd didn't want to live up some slightly improved logging road.
Fast forward 2 or 3 decades of unchecked gentrification in the Santa Cruz mountains. Now he's surrounded... by people just... like... you. That's why he owns a gun.
So, he's afraid of being taken down by gentrifying suburban development? Soccer moms in expensive cars? Surfers with nice driveways? In Santa Cruz? I'm not sure I can take any more of this "EXACTLY WHY" "clear" communication today. I'd like to do something useful with my time.
Rr
sdw
On 09/05/2016 01:05 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
On 9/5/16 12:44 PM, Razer wrote:
On 09/05/2016 12:21 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
Regardless of what Tim may or may not have wanted to happen in some or all cases, it doesn't say it in his signature, or in the manifesto.
He's saying it with his LIFE dude. Maybe you need to get one too?
Do you think that you are clearly communicating?
Do you suffer from some version of, as my friend used to say, "post 1960's perception disorder"?
Does "Fuck off troll" mean anything to you? I think I communicated it pretty fucking clearly jack. Especially the part about Tim probably not liking you. Rr
Ps. I've met Tim in passing over my 40 year residence in the area. Never even knew of his significance you know?
I don't know if you've ever been to Corralitos, so I'll tell you EXACTLY WHY he's "gone all hermit with a gun". When he moved up there it was outlaw land in Santa Cruz County. Gravel roads, NO BEEMERS, they didn't want to chip their car's paint and gravel is rough on suspension parts et al. Pot growers everywhere. Last Chance Road, north of Santa Cruz was another such place. Above Boulder Creek ditto. The office crowd didn't want to live up some slightly improved logging road.
Fast forward 2 or 3 decades of unchecked gentrification in the Santa Cruz mountains. Now he's surrounded... by people just... like... you. That's why he owns a gun.
So, he's afraid of being taken down by gentrifying suburban development? Soccer moms in expensive cars? Surfers with nice driveways? In Santa Cruz?
I'm not sure I can take any more of this "EXACTLY WHY" "clear" communication today. I'd like to do something useful with my time.
Rr
sdw
On 9/5/16 6:38 PM, Razer wrote:
On 09/05/2016 01:05 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
On 9/5/16 12:44 PM, Razer wrote:
On 09/05/2016 12:21 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
Regardless of what Tim may or may not have wanted to happen in some or all cases, it doesn't say it in his signature, or in the manifesto. He's saying it with his LIFE dude. Maybe you need to get one too? Do you think that you are clearly communicating?
Do you suffer from some version of, as my friend used to say, "post 1960's perception disorder"?
Does "Fuck off troll" mean anything to you? I think I communicated it
Nope, not a thing. Not if you can't have a coherent, civil conversation. You failed both here.
pretty fucking clearly jack. Especially the part about Tim probably not liking you.
Way back in 1995, I was the 6th person to point out some minor misstatement that one day, and I happened to have firsthand knowledge of the person in question. So he responded with a bit of exasperation at my message. Big deal. Other than that, I don't recall. At that age, in that age, I was probably a bit annoying. Does it matter?
Rr
Ps. I've met Tim in passing over my 40 year residence in the area. Never even knew of his significance you know?
I don't know if you've ever been to Corralitos, so I'll tell you EXACTLY WHY he's "gone all hermit with a gun". When he moved up there it was outlaw land in Santa Cruz County. Gravel roads, NO BEEMERS, they didn't want to chip their car's paint and gravel is rough on suspension parts et al. Pot growers everywhere. Last Chance Road, north of Santa Cruz was another such place. Above Boulder Creek ditto. The office crowd didn't want to live up some slightly improved logging road.
Fast forward 2 or 3 decades of unchecked gentrification in the Santa Cruz mountains. Now he's surrounded... by people just... like... you. That's why he owns a gun. So, he's afraid of being taken down by gentrifying suburban development? Soccer moms in expensive cars? Surfers with nice driveways? In Santa Cruz?
I'm not sure I can take any more of this "EXACTLY WHY" "clear" communication today. I'd like to do something useful with my time.
Rr sdw
sdw
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 01:05:00PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
On 9/5/16 12:44 PM, Razer wrote:
On 09/05/2016 12:21 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
Regardless of what Tim may or may not have wanted to happen in some or all cases, it doesn't say it in his signature, or in the manifesto.
He's saying it with his LIFE dude. Maybe you need to get one too?
Do you think that you are clearly communicating?
Do you suffer from some version of, as my friend used to say, "post 1960's perception disorder"?
When widicule won't work, (attempt to) hibwow your opponent! Oh, wait, hah! that's just more widicule! Who woulda thunked it from Stephen De Widicurler? :D May be one to add to the Troll Tools COINTELPRO list :)
Ps. I've met Tim in passing over my 40 year residence in the area. Never even knew of his significance you know?
I don't know if you've ever been to Corralitos, so I'll tell you EXACTLY WHY he's "gone all hermit with a gun". When he moved up there it was outlaw land in Santa Cruz County. Gravel roads, NO BEEMERS, they didn't want to chip their car's paint and gravel is rough on suspension parts et al. Pot growers everywhere. Last Chance Road, north of Santa Cruz was another such place. Above Boulder Creek ditto. The office crowd didn't want to live up some slightly improved logging road.
Fast forward 2 or 3 decades of unchecked gentrification in the Santa Cruz mountains. Now he's surrounded... by people just... like... you. That's why he owns a gun.
So, he's afraid of being taken down by gentrifying suburban development? Soccer moms in expensive cars? Surfers with nice driveways? In Santa Cruz?
I'm not sure I can take any more of this "EXACTLY WHY" "clear" communication today. I'd like to do something useful with my time.
Hmm, like overthrow your criminal government ... oh wait, that's wight, you work for Da Man! All praise! Stephen Dee Widdle!
Rr
sdw
Stephen, a hint: when real men realise they have ridiculed someone unfairly, for example with shit like this:
Do you suffer from some version of, as my friend used to say, "post 1960's perception disorder"?
they apologise. Power tripping pricks, CIA shills, wanna be list censors and trolls in general, strangely find doing so "really difficult". But the heart maketh the man as they say.. On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 07:06:54PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 01:05:00PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
On 9/5/16 12:44 PM, Razer wrote:
On 09/05/2016 12:21 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
Regardless of what Tim may or may not have wanted to happen in some or all cases, it doesn't say it in his signature, or in the manifesto.
He's saying it with his LIFE dude. Maybe you need to get one too?
Do you think that you are clearly communicating?
Do you suffer from some version of, as my friend used to say, "post 1960's perception disorder"?
When widicule won't work, (attempt to) hibwow your opponent!
Oh, wait, hah! that's just more widicule! Who woulda thunked it from Stephen De Widicurler? :D
May be one to add to the Troll Tools COINTELPRO list :)
Ps. I've met Tim in passing over my 40 year residence in the area. Never even knew of his significance you know?
I don't know if you've ever been to Corralitos, so I'll tell you EXACTLY WHY he's "gone all hermit with a gun". When he moved up there it was outlaw land in Santa Cruz County. Gravel roads, NO BEEMERS, they didn't want to chip their car's paint and gravel is rough on suspension parts et al. Pot growers everywhere. Last Chance Road, north of Santa Cruz was another such place. Above Boulder Creek ditto. The office crowd didn't want to live up some slightly improved logging road.
Fast forward 2 or 3 decades of unchecked gentrification in the Santa Cruz mountains. Now he's surrounded... by people just... like... you. That's why he owns a gun.
So, he's afraid of being taken down by gentrifying suburban development? Soccer moms in expensive cars? Surfers with nice driveways? In Santa Cruz?
I'm not sure I can take any more of this "EXACTLY WHY" "clear" communication today. I'd like to do something useful with my time.
Hmm, like overthrow your criminal government ... oh wait, that's wight, you work for Da Man!
All praise! Stephen Dee Widdle!
Rr
sdw
On 09/08/2016 07:49 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Stephen, a hint: when real men realise they have ridiculed someone unfairly, for example with shit like this:
Who the fuck cares, bro?
Do you suffer from some version of, as my friend used to say, "post 1960's perception disorder"?
they apologise.
Power tripping pricks, CIA shills, wanna be list censors and trolls in general, strangely find doing so "really difficult".
But the heart maketh the man as they say..
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 07:06:54PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 01:05:00PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
On 9/5/16 12:44 PM, Razer wrote:
On 09/05/2016 12:21 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
Regardless of what Tim may or may not have wanted to happen in some or all cases, it doesn't say it in his signature, or in the manifesto.
He's saying it with his LIFE dude. Maybe you need to get one too?
Do you think that you are clearly communicating?
Do you suffer from some version of, as my friend used to say, "post 1960's perception disorder"?
When widicule won't work, (attempt to) hibwow your opponent!
Oh, wait, hah! that's just more widicule! Who woulda thunked it from Stephen De Widicurler? :D
May be one to add to the Troll Tools COINTELPRO list :)
Ps. I've met Tim in passing over my 40 year residence in the area. Never even knew of his significance you know?
I don't know if you've ever been to Corralitos, so I'll tell you EXACTLY WHY he's "gone all hermit with a gun". When he moved up there it was outlaw land in Santa Cruz County. Gravel roads, NO BEEMERS, they didn't want to chip their car's paint and gravel is rough on suspension parts et al. Pot growers everywhere. Last Chance Road, north of Santa Cruz was another such place. Above Boulder Creek ditto. The office crowd didn't want to live up some slightly improved logging road.
Fast forward 2 or 3 decades of unchecked gentrification in the Santa Cruz mountains. Now he's surrounded... by people just... like... you. That's why he owns a gun.
So, he's afraid of being taken down by gentrifying suburban development? Soccer moms in expensive cars? Surfers with nice driveways? In Santa Cruz?
I'm not sure I can take any more of this "EXACTLY WHY" "clear" communication today. I'd like to do something useful with my time.
Hmm, like overthrow your criminal government ... oh wait, that's wight, you work for Da Man!
All praise! Stephen Dee Widdle!
Rr
sdw
On 09/08/2016 06:49 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Stephen, a hint: when real men realise they have ridiculed someone unfairly, for example with shit like this:
Do you suffer from some version of, as my friend used to say, "post 1960's perception disorder"?
Actually, I'm one of those unlucky suckers who lived through the 60s and remembers it. It's a curse I tell ya, a curse. So much revisionism. The media-driven Funhouse Mirror effect Roszak described worked quite well at shaping people's perception, even people who experienced it directly. It was crude then. They have much more sophisticated methods today
they apologise.
Power tripping pricks, CIA shills, wanna be list censors and trolls in general, strangely find doing so "really difficult".
But the heart maketh the man as they say..
I just didn't feel it worth a reply Zen Rr
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 07:06:54PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 01:05:00PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
On 9/5/16 12:44 PM, Razer wrote:
On 09/05/2016 12:21 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
Regardless of what Tim may or may not have wanted to happen in some or all cases, it doesn't say it in his signature, or in the manifesto.
He's saying it with his LIFE dude. Maybe you need to get one too?
Do you think that you are clearly communicating?
Do you suffer from some version of, as my friend used to say, "post 1960's perception disorder"?
When widicule won't work, (attempt to) hibwow your opponent!
Oh, wait, hah! that's just more widicule! Who woulda thunked it from Stephen De Widicurler? :D
May be one to add to the Troll Tools COINTELPRO list :)
Ps. I've met Tim in passing over my 40 year residence in the area. Never even knew of his significance you know?
I don't know if you've ever been to Corralitos, so I'll tell you EXACTLY WHY he's "gone all hermit with a gun". When he moved up there it was outlaw land in Santa Cruz County. Gravel roads, NO BEEMERS, they didn't want to chip their car's paint and gravel is rough on suspension parts et al. Pot growers everywhere. Last Chance Road, north of Santa Cruz was another such place. Above Boulder Creek ditto. The office crowd didn't want to live up some slightly improved logging road.
Fast forward 2 or 3 decades of unchecked gentrification in the Santa Cruz mountains. Now he's surrounded... by people just... like... you. That's why he owns a gun.
So, he's afraid of being taken down by gentrifying suburban development? Soccer moms in expensive cars? Surfers with nice driveways? In Santa Cruz?
I'm not sure I can take any more of this "EXACTLY WHY" "clear" communication today. I'd like to do something useful with my time.
Hmm, like overthrow your criminal government ... oh wait, that's wight, you work for Da Man!
All praise! Stephen Dee Widdle!
Rr
sdw
On 9/8/16 8:59 AM, Razer wrote:
On 09/08/2016 06:49 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Stephen, a hint: when real men realise they have ridiculed someone unfairly, for example with shit like this:
Do you suffer from some version of, as my friend used to say, "post 1960's perception disorder"?
Actually, I'm one of those unlucky suckers who lived through the 60s and remembers it. It's a curse I tell ya, a curse.
Sorry to hear that! Although extremely hit or miss I'm sure, and I would have been in the wrong part of the country, there were some experiences to be jealous of. But plenty more that sucked too. Pain we had to go through.
So much revisionism. The media-driven Funhouse Mirror effect Roszak described worked quite well at shaping people's perception, even people who experienced it directly. It was crude then. They have much more sophisticated methods today
Seems like some of that repackaging and deflection has been uncovered. Too bad it took so long. So much turmoil, so much confusion. A lot of progress was made, but often fell short. We're still having echos, and they are, in many ways, finally winning over all of the waves of resistance. sdw
On 9/8/16 6:49 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Stephen, a hint: when real men realise they have ridiculed someone unfairly, for example with shit like this:
Do you suffer from some version of, as my friend used to say, "post 1960's perception disorder"?
You think that qualifies as ridicule? I should introduce you to my ex-wife. You wouldn't last five minutes. And why do you think it was unfair?
they apologise.
Power tripping pricks, CIA shills, wanna be list censors and trolls in general, strangely find doing so "really difficult".
But the heart maketh the man as they say..
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 07:06:54PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 01:05:00PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
On 9/5/16 12:44 PM, Razer wrote:
On 09/05/2016 12:21 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
Regardless of what Tim may or may not have wanted to happen in some or all cases, it doesn't say it in his signature, or in the manifesto. He's saying it with his LIFE dude. Maybe you need to get one too? Do you think that you are clearly communicating?
Do you suffer from some version of, as my friend used to say, "post 1960's perception disorder"? When widicule won't work, (attempt to) hibwow your opponent!
Oh, wait, hah! that's just more widicule! Who woulda thunked it from Stephen De Widicurler? :D
May be one to add to the Troll Tools COINTELPRO list :)
Ps. I've met Tim in passing over my 40 year residence in the area. Never even knew of his significance you know?
I don't know if you've ever been to Corralitos, so I'll tell you EXACTLY WHY he's "gone all hermit with a gun". When he moved up there it was outlaw land in Santa Cruz County. Gravel roads, NO BEEMERS, they didn't want to chip their car's paint and gravel is rough on suspension parts et al. Pot growers everywhere. Last Chance Road, north of Santa Cruz was another such place. Above Boulder Creek ditto. The office crowd didn't want to live up some slightly improved logging road.
Fast forward 2 or 3 decades of unchecked gentrification in the Santa Cruz mountains. Now he's surrounded... by people just... like... you. That's why he owns a gun. So, he's afraid of being taken down by gentrifying suburban development? Soccer moms in expensive cars? Surfers with nice driveways? In Santa Cruz?
I'm not sure I can take any more of this "EXACTLY WHY" "clear" communication today. I'd like to do something useful with my time. Hmm, like overthrow your criminal government ... oh wait, that's wight, you work for Da Man!
All praise! Stephen Dee Widdle!
Rr sdw
sdw
On 09/08/2016 11:42 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
And why do you think it was unfair?
Simply? Because you don't have the vaguest fucking idea where I've been or what I know. Troll. Rr "You are a liar. Which way did you go? By what rivers? By what lakes? Who went with you? Give him to us and we promise you he shall never lie again." [Tessouat, Ottawa chief, to Samuel Champlain at Muskrat Lake, spring of 1613]
On 9/9/16 7:42 AM, Razer wrote:
On 09/08/2016 11:42 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
And why do you think it was unfair?
Simply? Because you don't have the vaguest fucking idea where I've been or what I know. Troll.
None of that matters if you can't have a civil and coherent conversation. You're the troll. Let's recap:
On 9/5/16 12:44 PM, Razer wrote: - hide quoted text -
On 09/05/2016 12:21 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
Regardless of what Tim may or may not have wanted to happen in some or all cases, it doesn't say it in his signature, or in the manifesto. He's saying it with his LIFE dude. Maybe you need to get one too?
Do you think that you are clearly communicating?
Well, do you? What does "He's saying it with his LIFE dude." mean?
Do you suffer from some version of, as my friend used to say, "post 1960's perception disorder"?
Seems like a valid question at this point especially given the other half:
Ps. I've met Tim in passing over my 40 year residence in the area. Never even knew of his significance you know?
I don't know if you've ever been to Corralitos, so I'll tell you EXACTLY WHY he's "gone all hermit with a gun". When he moved up there it was outlaw land in Santa Cruz County. Gravel roads, NO BEEMERS, they didn't want to chip their car's paint and gravel is rough on suspension parts et al. Pot growers everywhere. Last Chance Road, north of Santa Cruz was another such place. Above Boulder Creek ditto. The office crowd didn't want to live up some slightly improved logging road.
Fast forward 2 or 3 decades of unchecked gentrification in the Santa Cruz mountains. Now he's surrounded... by people just... like... you. That's why he owns a gun.
You say you are going to 'tell you EXACTLY WHY he's "gone all hermit with a gun"' and then ... you don't. You say it has something to do with gentrification. That's not a why unless you've already established why someone should be deathly afraid and clutching their gun because soccer moms are invading next door.
Rr
sdw
On 09/09/2016 10:05 AM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
You say you are going to 'tell you EXACTLY WHY he's "gone all hermit with a gun"' and then ... you don't. You say it has something to do with gentrification. That's not a why unless you've already established why someone should be deathly afraid and clutching their gun because soccer moms are invading next door.
They aren't soccer moms. They live in Aptos and Rio Del Mar. The people who invaded Corralitos... They're people just like you. Cocksure assholes you need to chase off with a Weatherby .404. Ps. I know something about cyberpiggie you don't know. At least I'm kinda sorta sure. (You see. Unlike you, I admit being unsure.) And I'm not telling. You'd have to be a local to understand. Rr
On 9/9/16 7:42 AM, Razer wrote:
On 09/08/2016 11:42 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
And why do you think it was unfair?
Simply? Because you don't have the vaguest fucking idea where I've been or what I know. Troll.
None of that matters if you can't have a civil and coherent conversation. You're the troll. Let's recap:
On 9/5/16 12:44 PM, Razer wrote: - hide quoted text -
On 09/05/2016 12:21 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
Regardless of what Tim may or may not have wanted to happen in some or all cases, it doesn't say it in his signature, or in the manifesto. He's saying it with his LIFE dude. Maybe you need to get one too?
Do you think that you are clearly communicating?
Well, do you? What does "He's saying it with his LIFE dude." mean?
Do you suffer from some version of, as my friend used to say, "post 1960's perception disorder"?
Seems like a valid question at this point especially given the other half:
Ps. I've met Tim in passing over my 40 year residence in the area. Never even knew of his significance you know?
I don't know if you've ever been to Corralitos, so I'll tell you EXACTLY WHY he's "gone all hermit with a gun". When he moved up there it was outlaw land in Santa Cruz County. Gravel roads, NO BEEMERS, they didn't want to chip their car's paint and gravel is rough on suspension parts et al. Pot growers everywhere. Last Chance Road, north of Santa Cruz was another such place. Above Boulder Creek ditto. The office crowd didn't want to live up some slightly improved logging road.
Fast forward 2 or 3 decades of unchecked gentrification in the Santa Cruz mountains. Now he's surrounded... by people just... like... you. That's why he owns a gun.
You say you are going to 'tell you EXACTLY WHY he's "gone all hermit with a gun"' and then ... you don't. You say it has something to do with gentrification. That's not a why unless you've already established why someone should be deathly afraid and clutching their gun because soccer moms are invading next door.
Rr
sdw
On 09/09/2016 12:22 PM, Razer wrote:
On 09/09/2016 10:05 AM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
You say you are going to 'tell you EXACTLY WHY he's "gone all hermit with a gun"' and then ... you don't. You say it has something to do with gentrification. That's not a why unless you've already established why someone should be deathly afraid and clutching their gun because soccer moms are invading next door.
They aren't soccer moms. They live in Aptos and Rio Del Mar. The people who invaded Corralitos... They're people just like you. Cocksure assholes you need to chase off with a Weatherby .404.
To my knowledge, Tim has always liked guns. Since the 90s anyway :)
Ps. I know something about cyberpiggie you don't know. At least I'm kinda sorta sure. (You see. Unlike you, I admit being unsure.) And I'm not telling. You'd have to be a local to understand.
Rr
On 9/9/16 7:42 AM, Razer wrote:
On 09/08/2016 11:42 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
And why do you think it was unfair?
Simply? Because you don't have the vaguest fucking idea where I've been or what I know. Troll.
None of that matters if you can't have a civil and coherent conversation. You're the troll. Let's recap:
On 9/5/16 12:44 PM, Razer wrote: - hide quoted text -
On 09/05/2016 12:21 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
Regardless of what Tim may or may not have wanted to happen in some or all cases, it doesn't say it in his signature, or in the manifesto. He's saying it with his LIFE dude. Maybe you need to get one too?
Do you think that you are clearly communicating?
Well, do you? What does "He's saying it with his LIFE dude." mean?
Do you suffer from some version of, as my friend used to say, "post 1960's perception disorder"?
Seems like a valid question at this point especially given the other half:
Ps. I've met Tim in passing over my 40 year residence in the area. Never even knew of his significance you know?
I don't know if you've ever been to Corralitos, so I'll tell you EXACTLY WHY he's "gone all hermit with a gun". When he moved up there it was outlaw land in Santa Cruz County. Gravel roads, NO BEEMERS, they didn't want to chip their car's paint and gravel is rough on suspension parts et al. Pot growers everywhere. Last Chance Road, north of Santa Cruz was another such place. Above Boulder Creek ditto. The office crowd didn't want to live up some slightly improved logging road.
Fast forward 2 or 3 decades of unchecked gentrification in the Santa Cruz mountains. Now he's surrounded... by people just... like... you. That's why he owns a gun.
You say you are going to 'tell you EXACTLY WHY he's "gone all hermit with a gun"' and then ... you don't. You say it has something to do with gentrification. That's not a why unless you've already established why someone should be deathly afraid and clutching their gun because soccer moms are invading next door.
Rr
sdw
You think that qualifies as ridicule? I should introduce you to my ex-wife. You wouldn't last five minutes.
there is asshole abuser named juanTROLL that need have his balls SMASHed put back inside him by femdom, please put EX of yours and him in contact he is juan.g71@gmail.com
2016-09-05 22:44 GMT+03:00 Razer <rayzer@riseup.net>:
Regardless of what Tim may or may not have wanted to happen in some or all cases, it doesn't say it in his signature, or in the manifesto.
He's saying it with his LIFE dude. Maybe you need to get one too?
Oh, this one was good!!!
Still trying to figure out if (when i signed up to this list) i came to the house party in the crypto ghetto or Bruce Schneier's dinner party. I know which i'd prefer :) On 6 September 2016 05:15:39 GMT+01:00, "Александр" <afalex169@gmail.com> wrote:
2016-09-05 22:44 GMT+03:00 Razer <rayzer@riseup.net>:
Regardless of what Tim may or may not have wanted to happen in some or all cases, it doesn't say it in his signature, or in the manifesto.
He's saying it with his LIFE dude. Maybe you need to get one too?
Oh, this one was good!!!
Also Eric Hughes: A Cypherpunk's Manifesto, 9 March 1993 http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html Understanding distinction between privacy and secrecy is essential, for it is secrecy that corrupts in all its forms and is totally hostile to privacy, and true privacy totally hostile to secrecy. Privacy policies are fraudulent because they allow secretkeepers to violate privacy with "lawful" impunity. Which is why Snowden, Tor, media, corporations, NGOs, security experts, dual hatters, lawyers, privileged parties of all stripes, and many others are masterful bullshitters to urge "curation," censorship, withholding, redacting information by which secretkeepers empower themselves against the public by "self-regulated" access, that is self-serving. It is ridiculous to believe technical crypto by itself will not be subverted for political purposes, that mathematics will provide sufficient protection against wily opponents lawfully empowered to use any methods required to exploit vulnerabilities in people, technology, governance (standards setting, education, contracts, advisory boards, prizes, leaks, bribery, coercion -- partially listed in the troll tools, but far from all). From day one and continuing, cypherpunks warned of the unavoidable corruption of the list by malevolent subscribers, as well as of the Internet and digital technology in general. This malevolence has come to pass worldwide, through a range of treacheries from anonymization to crypto to HTTPS to OTR to leak sites to universities, to whatever tool is funded and promoted as the hot shit latest means to defy authority. Authority always wins. As authority bullshits and honors and hires those too timid to exceed conventional cowardice. Few cypherpunks have gone to jail for their convictions, many more have gone on to pretty good paying jobs, start-ups, buy-outs by IBM, MS, Cisco, Google, others in cahoots with authority. But some have seduced others to go to jail, crying ACLU-EFF-Greenwald grade crocodile tears at the injustice (advertising "donate to us" for the poor suckers). Blaming the victim of this seduction is rife as it is in deliberately faulty, highly monetized comsec. If all goes well, cataclismic cyberwar will provide the doomsday climax to persistent cypherpunk screwing. Assange aims at just that having imbibed the cryptoanarchy joy juice here. Tim May will continue to ridicule the fool as he did Jim Bell and CJ. This is the cypherpunk secret charter for being a bullshitting "force for good."
[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism [2] http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html
On 9/5/16 1:24 PM, John Young wrote:
Also Eric Hughes: A Cypherpunk's Manifesto, 9 March 1993
http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html Yes, I should have included that link. Let's call it [EricCM]. I just reread it a day or two ago. My short statement is an attempt to condense that to its essence.
Understanding distinction between privacy and secrecy is essential, for it is secrecy that corrupts in all its forms and is totally hostile to privacy, and true privacy totally hostile to secrecy. Privacy policies are fraudulent because they allow secretkeepers to violate privacy with "lawful" impunity. Which is why Snowden, Tor, media, corporations, NGOs, security experts, dual hatters, lawyers, privileged parties of all stripes, and many others are masterful bullshitters to urge "curation," censorship, withholding, redacting information by which secretkeepers empower themselves against the public by "self-regulated" access, that is self-serving.
That seems like a nuanced use of 'secrecy'. This extends what is in [EricCM]. If you want your own privacy but you want to deprive others, whether individual or organization, of theirs, I think you need to be specific about what situations you are talking about.
It is ridiculous to believe technical crypto by itself will not be subverted for political purposes, that mathematics will provide sufficient protection against wily opponents lawfully empowered to use any methods required to exploit vulnerabilities in people, technology, governance (standards setting, education, contracts, advisory boards, prizes, leaks, bribery, coercion -- partially listed in the troll tools, but far from all).
Where is the line between "used for efficient and safe functioning of government" and "subverted for political purposes"? Debating that line seems off topic.
From day one and continuing, cypherpunks warned of the unavoidable corruption of the list by malevolent subscribers, as well as of the Internet and digital technology in general. This malevolence has come to pass worldwide, through a range of treacheries from anonymization to crypto to HTTPS to OTR to leak sites to universities, to whatever tool is funded and promoted as the hot shit latest means to defy authority. Authority always wins. As authority bullshits and honors and hires those too timid to exceed conventional cowardice.
Authority always wins because, in a healthy system, authority is us. You have to first narrow your scope to 'abusers' or 'actually corrupt politicians' or similar if you want to 'win' against them. This is the same problem as treating all civilians as criminals or thugs or whatever: If you aren't specific, you fail.
Few cypherpunks have gone to jail for their convictions, many more have gone on to pretty good paying jobs, start-ups, buy-outs by IBM, MS, Cisco, Google, others in cahoots with authority. But some have seduced others to go to jail, crying ACLU-EFF-Greenwald grade crocodile tears at the injustice (advertising "donate to us" for the poor suckers). Blaming the victim of this seduction is rife as it is in deliberately faulty, highly monetized comsec.
If all goes well, cataclismic cyberwar will provide the doomsday climax to persistent cypherpunk screwing. Assange aims at just that having imbibed the cryptoanarchy joy juice here. Tim May will continue to ridicule the fool as he did Jim Bell and CJ. This is the cypherpunk secret charter for being a bullshitting "force for good."
Playing here and making good life choices are all about critical thinking. If you have gaps there, they may be amplified here. Assange may or may not have had an interesting point in certain past situations. But, at a glance, his preoccupation with Hillary-insanity-complex and doing anything to feed it seems terminal. As noted in an article from the last couple days, Hillary's problems really started when she decided to be private about Whitewater details. That attempt at privacy caused everyone to flip out. Kind of ironic as Eric's Manifesto specifically encourages privacy.
[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism [2] http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html
sdw
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 02:03:18PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
On 9/5/16 1:24 PM, John Young wrote:
Also Eric Hughes: A Cypherpunk's Manifesto, 9 March 1993
http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html Yes, I should have included that link. Let's call it [EricCM]. I just reread it a day or two ago. My short statement is an attempt to condense that to its essence.
Let's not leap in on luscious misinterpretations now ... which "short statement" would you be referring to hear, Stephen? Inquiring minds...
Understanding distinction between privacy and secrecy is essential, for it is secrecy that corrupts in all its forms and is totally hostile to privacy, and true privacy totally hostile to secrecy. Privacy policies are fraudulent because they allow secretkeepers to violate privacy with "lawful" impunity. Which is why Snowden, Tor, media, corporations, NGOs, security experts, dual hatters, lawyers, privileged parties of all stripes, and many others are masterful bullshitters to urge "curation," censorship, withholding, redacting information by which secretkeepers empower themselves against the public by "self-regulated" access, that is self-serving.
That seems like a nuanced use of 'secrecy'.
So say you. Evil only thrives in secrecy. Violation of privacy, in real time, on any level let alone globally, is evil in action.
This extends what is in [EricCM]. If you want your own privacy but you want to deprive others, whether individual or organization, of theirs, I think you need to be specific about what situations you are talking about.
Finding it difficult to come up with examples of exactly what you're asking someone else for (suggesting they "need" to do something no less) i.e. you can't think of some modern violations of privacy where those committing the violations are abusing their own power of secrecy? Tut, tut!
It is ridiculous to believe technical crypto by itself will not be subverted for political purposes, that mathematics will provide sufficient protection against wily opponents lawfully empowered to use any methods required to exploit vulnerabilities in people, technology, governance (standards setting, education, contracts, advisory boards, prizes, leaks, bribery, coercion -- partially listed in the troll tools, but far from all).
Where is the line between "used for efficient and safe functioning of government" and "subverted for political purposes"? Debating that line seems off topic.
Wow. Out comes SDW, the great cypherpunks censor, dictating what's on topic and what's offtopic - to anyone for that matter including Rayzer, myself or whever, but more so in this case, you tell John Young, yes, -the- John Young, that his discussion of privacy and secrecy and how they two are linked, unliked, abused and reabused, is offtopic! That's the funniest thing I've read all week!!!! Awesome. Please, next try to justify yourself ... this'll be great :D OK, ok, let's stay with this folks, what's the next round gonna be:
From day one and continuing, cypherpunks warned of the unavoidable corruption of the list by malevolent subscribers, as well as of the Internet and digital technology in general. This malevolence has come to pass worldwide, through a range of treacheries from anonymization to crypto to HTTPS to OTR to leak sites to universities, to whatever tool is funded and promoted as the hot shit latest means to defy authority. Authority always wins. As authority bullshits and honors and hires those too timid to exceed conventional cowardice.
Authority always wins because, in a healthy system, authority is us.
:) Predictable start, a reasonable non-existent hypothetical :)
You have to
The authority begins to speak ... better listen up close now :)
first narrow your scope
because without narrowing our scope to your chosen dichotomy, platform or context, you won't have a hope of destroying your next straw man ... at least, I suspect this might be coming, let's see shall we:
to 'abusers' or 'actually corrupt politicians' or similar if you want to 'win' against them. This is the same problem as treating all civilians as criminals or thugs or whatever: If you aren't specific, you fail.
Aaaaand, there we have it - straw man sliced in two, reduced to a nothingness, destroyed so all can see how wrong, irrelevant and impractical, your opponent, John Young, really is! Well, the plot developed on typically typical typicalities. I guess we can't ask for a ticket refund since we knew what we were getting :D oh wait, wait! there's more... Perhaps we'll get a surprise ending:
Few cypherpunks have gone to jail for their convictions, many more have gone on to pretty good paying jobs, start-ups, buy-outs by IBM, MS, Cisco, Google, others in cahoots with authority. But some have seduced others to go to jail, crying ACLU-EFF-Greenwald grade crocodile tears at the injustice (advertising "donate to us" for the poor suckers). Blaming the victim of this seduction is rife as it is in deliberately faulty, highly monetized comsec.
If all goes well, cataclismic cyberwar will provide the doomsday climax to persistent cypherpunk screwing. Assange aims at just that having imbibed the cryptoanarchy joy juice here. Tim May will continue to ridicule the fool as he did Jim Bell and CJ. This is the cypherpunk secret charter for being a bullshitting "force for good."
Playing here and making good life choices are all about critical thinking.
Well, a truism I can agree with. Looks like we're setting up for a happy ending..
If you have gaps there, they may be amplified here.
Indeed.
Assange may or may not have had an interesting point in certain past situations. But, at a glance, his preoccupation with Hillary-insanity-complex and doing anything to feed it seems terminal.
Ahh, descent into politics. Well, I guess someone's laid that precedent out pretty firmly on this list :)
As noted in an article from the last couple days, Hillary's problems
Oh wait, a final twist - accuse Assange of politics, then dive in head first, just for the fun of it!! Well -done- Stephen! Nice twist! Even surprised me :)
really started when she decided to be private about Whitewater details. That attempt at privacy caused everyone to flip out. Kind
And even a tie-in to your straw man rip down du-jour!! Bloody well done mate, bloody well done!!!
of ironic as Eric's Manifesto specifically encourages privacy.
Oh yes - you just, could, not, resist. I knew it would come :) Now if you diddn't pretend to completely miss John Young's and Eric Holder's actual words, you might not have utterly conflated privacy with secrecy and contradicted yourself so appalingly. But hey, don't let me stop you knocking youself out :D A fine, fine attempt. Sadly, predictable and rather pathetic all told, but hey, it was a few minutes of entertainment for the rest of us. Ladies and gentlemen! We HAVE our ending! "The contradiction, just completely transparent, so rather dull all told." So, sdw, back to psych school for -you- me boy! :D :D
[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism [2] http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html
sdw
Absolutely stunning insights! Thank you so much John (and of course Eric Hughes). On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 04:24:14PM -0400, John Young wrote:
Also Eric Hughes: A Cypherpunk's Manifesto, 9 March 1993
http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html
Understanding distinction between privacy and secrecy is essential, for it is secrecy that corrupts in all its forms and is totally hostile to privacy,
So true! Awesome that this is named so clearly!
and true privacy totally hostile to secrecy.
I'll contemplate on this one, but that's an astounding thing to say! Again, thank you!
Privacy policies are fraudulent because they allow secretkeepers to violate privacy with "lawful" impunity.
Beautiful!
Which is why Snowden, Tor, media, corporations, NGOs, security experts, dual hatters, lawyers, privileged parties of all stripes, and many others are masterful bullshitters to urge "curation," censorship, withholding, redacting information by which secretkeepers empower themselves against the public by "self-regulated" access, that is self-serving.
I heard an old saying "evil only thrives in secrecy" - would be good to know who first got famous for saying that - they may have other things worth digging into.
It is ridiculous to believe technical crypto by itself will not be subverted for political purposes,
THANK you!!!
that mathematics will provide sufficient protection against wily opponents lawfully empowered to use any methods required to exploit vulnerabilities in people, technology, governance (standards setting, education, contracts, advisory boards, prizes, leaks, bribery, coercion -- partially listed in the troll tools, but far from all).
:)
From day one and continuing, cypherpunks warned of the unavoidable corruption of the list by malevolent subscribers, as well as of the Internet and digital technology in general. This malevolence has come to pass worldwide, through a range of treacheries from anonymization to crypto to HTTPS to OTR to leak sites to universities, to whatever tool is funded and promoted as the hot shit latest means to defy authority.
Authority always wins.
Sadly this appears to continue. This is a fundamental! Westerners are thoroughly schooled to externalise authority, so external authorities, in this "consciousness" environment, are bound to win, to always but always get the upper hand and to get it easily - those meek and weak "personaly stability because I'm 'saving' 'the world'" sluts like Roger Dingledine DON'T speak up, FAIL to name evils that are perpetrated IN THEIR FACE and UNDER THEIR WATCH!!!
As authority bullshits and honors and hires those too timid to exceed conventional cowardice.
Ab-so-f-iretr-ucking-lutely !! !!! ! ! !!!!!
Few cypherpunks have gone to jail for their convictions,
And how!
many more have gone on to pretty good paying jobs, start-ups, buy-outs by IBM, MS, Cisco, Google, others in cahoots with authority.
Soul sellouts all of them!
But some have seduced others to go to jail, crying ACLU-EFF-Greenwald grade crocodile tears at the injustice (advertising "donate to us" for the poor suckers).
Indeed I was so suckered in at least one prior year..
Blaming the victim of this seduction is rife as it is in deliberately faulty, highly monetized comsec.
Indeed. !
If all goes well, cataclismic cyberwar will provide the doomsday climax to persistent cypherpunk screwing. Assange aims at just that having imbibed the cryptoanarchy joy juice here. Tim May will continue to ridicule the fool as he did Jim Bell and CJ. This is the cypherpunk secret charter for being a bullshitting "force for good."
"Oh, but I'm taking the money from The Man because unlike SOME, --I-- am SAVING the WORLD!!! Just as flowers and daisys save the world, the unicorns rejuice!"
[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism [2] http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html
John, with all my soul, thank you!
On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 12:21:09 -0700 "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net> wrote:
Regardless of what Tim may or may not have wanted to happen in some or all cases, it doesn't say it in his signature, or in the manifesto.
That is of course just crazy lies on your part. My english is far from perfect but I can understand written english reasonably well. If you ever learn how to browse text files full of email messages, I suggest you check the list archives. It is a plain fact that May had the "collapse of government" by means of cryto means in mind.
On 09/05/2016 02:27 PM, juan wrote:
On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 12:21:09 -0700 "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net> wrote:
Regardless of what Tim may or may not have wanted to happen in some or all cases, it doesn't say it in his signature, or in the manifesto.
That is of course just crazy lies on your part. My english is far from perfect but I can understand written english reasonably well.
If you ever learn how to browse text files full of email messages, I suggest you check the list archives.
It is a plain fact that May had the "collapse of government" by means of cryto means in mind.
I can't believe I'm typing this. I agree with Juan. There. I typed it.
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 06:40:49PM -0700, Razer wrote:
On 09/05/2016 02:27 PM, juan wrote:
On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 12:21:09 -0700 "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net> wrote:
Regardless of what Tim may or may not have wanted to happen in some or all cases, it doesn't say it in his signature, or in the manifesto.
That is of course just crazy lies on your part. My english is far from perfect but I can understand written english reasonably well.
If you ever learn how to browse text files full of email messages, I suggest you check the list archives.
It is a plain fact that May had the "collapse of government" by means of cryto means in mind.
I can't believe I'm typing this. I agree with Juan. There. I typed it.
Rayzer, there's one thing the TLA employees can never compete with, and that's heart. Those who value the truth, who actually support the empowerment of individuals and their ultimate sovereignty, we have an untouchable advantage - we smell the bullshit, and we are targetted by it; all "those agin us" (against us) can do is parrot the words and phrases that they know are "supposed to be said at this point" ... and pick up their pay cheque at the end of the week. We don't have those pay cheques, and we are the target of the system and those who control the system, so we will ALWAYS have a greater awareness of the bullshit, and we also don't have enemies because we are paid to - when another soul speaks truth, then for us, it is the truth that it is.
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 01:30:14PM +0200, Tom wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 08:18:58PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
We don't have those pay cheques, and we are the target of the system and those who control the system
Nope.
The "system" doesn't care about you. You're just a number, if anyting.
OK, we're a collective target for the control mechanisms and the propaganda of "the system". Precise enough now?
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 06:27:47PM -0300, juan wrote:
On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 12:21:09 -0700 "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net> wrote:
Regardless of what Tim may or may not have wanted to happen in some or all cases, it doesn't say it in his signature, or in the manifesto.
That is of course just crazy lies on your part. My english is far from perfect but I can understand written english reasonably well.
:) I guess the TLA's' motto includes "never let the lack of a fact get in the way of a good hoodwink" :D
If you ever learn how to browse text files full of email messages, I suggest you check the list archives.
It is a plain fact that May had the "collapse of government" by means of cryto means in mind.
The funny part is, they try it on. At least they're good for a laugh occasionally. Sadly, "they" are fucking up the planet, murdering millions of people every decade and causing much mayhem around our shared world. So as funny as the rubbish can be, there is just so much actual evil, and seemingly no restraint by those who wield the power.
Aww, come on, I need a little down time... <cheeky wicked cackle> On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 12:21:09PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
(Apologies for rehashing this, but it seems a good time to make another pass at consensus.)
This is how I always thought about the Cypherpunks charter:
Cypherpunks exists to promote free speech, establish that free speech includes the freedom to have secure private speech, and to explore how this can be accomplished. In support of this, to understand implications of technology-enabled free speech and the technical, commercial, and political moves needed to protect free speech.
While the Cypherpunk Manifesto focuses mainly on predicting how the then-new ideas might play out, it is very thin on clarity of what should happen and what roles those present should play. I think that was intentional and strategic. It was also written at the beginning of a period of serious conflicts about using encryption at all, public knowledge of encryption and secure methods, export, government access and control boundary exploration, etc.
What this does not include is promoting or bashing particular political systems or plotting their demise
"Do not promote or bash particular political systems with which I am closely associated!" "Do not plot the demise of particular political systems with which I am closely associated!" Or the wrath of SDW shall reign upon thee!
or constantly going on about insane nonsense.
What is your concise summary of Cypherpunks? Can you justify it? What does the above get wrong and why?
Everyone anarchist has the absolute right, indeed duty, to frame every debate in the way they so choose, personally, vehemently, with dignity and disdain for any who impose their personally crazy upon us. Indeed, any anarchist worth their salt shall diligently ridicule any framing which appears to intend to bind and threaten the wrath of SDW for no abiding said frame! :D :D
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism [2] http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html
Recent commentary repeated for coherency, entertainment, and to forestall the need for certain predictable responses:
Regardless of what Tim may or may not have wanted to happen in some or all cases, it doesn't say it in his signature, or in the manifesto.
"I wish to appeal to external authority, but unfortunately Tim was a bit of an anarchist, and such a strategic bastard that he left a bunch open to interpretation."
Cypherpunks has always straddled a number of areas; exploring the implications of crypto-anarchism is one of them. Even in May's quotes in [1], it isn't necessarily the point to have a collapse of a system
"Although it's not exactly necessary to plot the demise of particular political systems with which I am closely associated, as part of an ongoing context of conversation which we can conveniently label "cypher punks", the end of this sentence cannot reasonably be concluded to contradict my implied assertions at the beginning of this email, so please ignore this particular part of what Tim may or may not have said..."
as a goal, but to examine it as a possibility. I think the attitude is that if you come to believe that encryption and other security measures must be available, perhaps as an extension of free speech, and those cause weak or broken systems to collapse, then so be it.
"... so let's at the very least frame our debate in the most politically correct way that we are able."
Some discussion of "* anarchy" isn't really anarchy,
"Nevertheless, let us pray that folks don't notice my self contradictory statements, "
it is just maybe anarchy to someone fixated on a fixed definition of their favorite system.
" and my implied ridiculing of those who speak henceforth on their favourite stupidity, nothing other than their silly fixation, I'll let you all know now, before such conversations even get under way, so that we all have a clear fix on how to respond to such ghastly possiblities!"
Or a signal by someone suggesting such a departure.
"Even a mere signal from some mart arse who suggests by mere implication to others to get a firecracker up their arse, really needs to be handled!"
Any real political anarchy has been a failure.
"As I said, ghastly my good fellows! Absolutely ghastly! We must unite in curtailing practical anarchy at all costs..."
The philosophokiddie cypherpunks are thoroughly punked and parodied in Mr. Robot: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-creator-of-mr-robot-explains-its-hackti...
"... so please join me in ridiculing any such ghastly individuals in advance, in retrospect, in every which way, may the US Government's force^B^B^Bpolitical system with which I am closely associated, prevail upon y'all!" "sdw, sincerewy distwacting welevance"
participants (10)
-
Cypher Piggie -
John Young -
juan -
Mirimir -
oshwm -
Razer -
Stephen D. Williams -
Tom -
Zenaan Harkness -
Александр