Digital Liberty by Bill Frezza, aka DigitaLiberty
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3a7ac/3a7acf6d8dce4b41e9a02b2215cb38203fcbb4c0" alt=""
https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/10652/1995_Winter.pdf Digital Liberty by Bill Frezza From: email list server To: cpsr-announce@Sunnyside.COM Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 18:38:13 -0800 Subject: DigitaLiberty Friends of Liberty, It is becoming increasingly apparent that the arrival of cyberspace is destined to engender a fundamental discontinuity in the course of human relations. This is a source of great optimism and opportunity for those of us who believe in freedom. Many of you who participate in the lively debates that take place in these forums have seen a number of activist organizations spring up claiming to represent the cause of freedom. And if you are like me you have cheered these groups on only to watch them get bogged down in a quagmire of realpolitics. It is a sad fact that the beast in Washington has evolved into a self- perpetuating engine expert at co-opting the principles of even the most ardent reformers. Slowly but surely all those who engage the system are ultimately absorbed into the mainstream miasma of majoritarianism. For example, what can be more discouraging than watching an organization that started out as a cyber-civil liberties group shift its focus to creating new forms of government entitlements while endorsing intrusive wiretap legislation because they didn't want to jeopardize their influence and prestige amongst the Washington power elite? Some of us believe we can seek ultimate redress at the polls. Many pundits have declared our recent national elections a watershed in politics, a turning point that represents the high water mark of big government. Nonsense. The names have changed, the chairs have been rearranged, but the game remains the same. The so-called "choices" we are presented with are false, hardly better than the mock one-party elections held by failed totalitarian regimes. There must be a better way. I would like to announce the formation of a new group - DigitaLiberty - that has chosen a different path. We intend to bypass the existing political process. We reject consensus building based on the calculus of compromise. Instead we plan to leave the past behind, much as our pioneering forefathers did when they set out to settle new lands. It is our mission to create the basis for a different kind of society. If you would like to join us I invite you to read the information below. Yours in freedom, Bill Frezza Co-founder, DigitaLiberty December 6, 1994 What is DigitaLiberty? DigitaLiberty is an advocacy group dedicated to the principled defense of freedom in cyberspace. We intend to conduct this defense not by engaging in traditional power politics but by setting an active, persuasive example - creating tangible opportunities for others to join us as we construct new global communities. We believe deeply in free markets and free minds and are convinced that we can construct a domain in which the uncoerced choices of individuals supplant the social compact politics of the tyranny of the majority. Is DigitaLiberty a political party or a lobbying group? Neither. DigitaLiberty does not seek to educate or influence politicians in the hope of obtaining legislation favorable to our constituents. We plan to make politicians and legislators irrelevant to the future of network based commerce, education, leisure, and social intercourse. DigitaLiberty does not seek to persuade a majority of the electorate to adopt views which can then be forced upon the minority. We hope to make majoritarianism irrelevant. We invite only like minded individuals to help us build the future according to our uncompromised shared values. What do you hope to accomplish? DigitaLiberty is not hopeful that widespread freedom will come to the physical world, at least not in our lifetime. Too many constituencies depend upon the largess and redistributive power of national governments and therefore oppose freedom and the individual responsibility it entails. But we do believe that liberty can and will prevail in the virtual domains we are building on the net and that national governments will be powerless to stop us. We believe that cyberspace will transcend national borders, national cultures, and national economies. We believe that no one will hold sovereignty over this new realm because coercive force is impotent in cyberspace. In keeping with the self-organizing nature of on-line societies we believe we will chose to invent new institutions to serve our varied economic and social purposes. DigitaLiberty intends to be in the forefront of the discovery and construction of these institutions. But what about the construction of the "Information Superhighway"? The fabric of cyberspace is rapidly being built by all manner of entities espousing the full range of political and economic philosophies. While political activity can certainly accelerate or retard the growth of the net in various places and times it cannot stop it nor can it effectively control how the net will be used. Our focus is not on the institutions that can and will impact the building of the physical "information highway" but on those that will shape life on the net as an ever increasing portion of our productive activities move there. What makes you think cyberspace will be so different? The United States of America was the only country in history ever to be built upon an idea. Unfortunately, this idea was lost as we slowly traded away our liberties in exchange for the false promise of security. DigitaLiberty believes that technology can set us free. The economies of the developed world are now making a major transition from an industrial base to an information base. As they do, the science of cryptology will finally and forever guarantee the unbreachable right of privacy, protecting individuals, groups, and corporations from the prying eyes and grasping hands of sovereigns. We will all be free to conduct our lives, and most importantly our economic relations, as we each see fit. Cyberspace is also infinitely extensible. There will be no brutal competition for lebensraum. Multiple virtual communities can exist side by side and without destructive conflict, each organized according to the principles of their members. We seek only to build one such community, a community based on individual liberty. Others are free to build communities based on other principles, even diametrically opposed principles. But they must do so without our coerced assistance. Effective communities will thrive and grow. Dysfunctional communities will wither and die. And for the first time in human history, rapacious societies will no longer have the power to make war on their neighbors nor can bankrupt communities take their neighbors down with them. What does this have to do with my real life? I can't eat data. I don't live in a computer. Yes, but imagine the ultimate impact of mankind's transition from an agrarian economy to an industrial economy to an information economy. Our founding fathers would have consider anyone insane who predicted that a nation of 250 million could feed itself with fewer than 3% of its citizens involved in agriculture. Similarly, economist and politicians trapped in the policies of the past lament our move from a manufacturing economy to a knowledge worker and service based economy. We see this as a cause to rejoice. The day will come when fewer than 5% of the citizens of a nation of 1 billion will be involved in manufacturing - if we still bother calling geographically defined entities "nations". What will the rest of us be doing? We will be providing each other with an exploding array of services and we will be creating, consuming, and exchanging information. Most of this will occur entirely within or be mediated at least in part by our activities in cyberspace. Many of us will earn a very good living on the net. Our race, our religion, our gender, our age, our physical appearance and limitations will all be irrelevant and undetectable. Hard working individuals from underdeveloped nations who in the past might have been forced to emigrate in search of economic freedom and opportunity can now build productive lives in cyberspace. And much if not all of the wealth we create that we do not transform into visible physical assets will be ours to keep and use, beyond the grasp of sovereigns. What is the purpose of this forum? The DigitaLiberty Forum is a place where like minded individuals can share their views, observations, and strategies related to the development of virtual communities based on freedom. It is a place where people can exchange information and advice about how they have developed extra-territorial business and social relationships - away from the influence and outside the jurisdiction of governments. It is a forum for the posting of essays, questions, and ideas on the topic of liberty. It is a place where we can meet and debate the forms that our new institutions might take and discuss the practical problems and responsibilities that freedom entail. In time as our technology matures some of us will move on to more ambitious projects, launch other programs, and begin our virtual migration from the swamp of coerced collectivism. Best of all, there will be no need to physically move to 'Galt's Gulch' or escape to a floating 'Freedonia'. We can all participate in this exodus without hastily quitting our jobs or disrupting our lives. And as a larger and larger portion of our economic and social activities move onto the net we will create a new society, open to all with the will to enter. This new world will be interleaved with the physical world in which we now live and yet will be separate. And free. Join us as we begin the journey. Who can join DigitaLiberty? The DigitaLiberty Forum is open to anyone that can honestly answer yes to the following two questions: 1. I renounce the use of coercive force as a tool of social or economic policy. 2. I do not derive the majority of my income from funds taken from taxpayers. How do I join DigitaLiberty? If you qualify, send a message to DigitaLiberty-request@phantom.com with the words "SUBSCRIBE" in the subject line and the message body as follows SUBSCRIBE DigitaLiberty And welcome to the future.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3a7ac/3a7acf6d8dce4b41e9a02b2215cb38203fcbb4c0" alt=""
https://www.wired.com/1995/04/a-fire-wall-around-the-beltway/ https://extropians.weidai.com/extropians.96/0311.html https://washingtontechnology.com/articles/1996/06/13/internet-to-create-lais... https://totseans.com/totse/en/zines/cud_a/cud6105.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute Warren T. Brookes Journalism Fellowship 2013–2014 Bill Frezza https://cei.org/expert/william-frezza https://cei.org/content/people/48490 https://twitter.com/billfrezza https://twitter.com/RealClearFrezza https://fee.org/people/bill-frezza/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/ Partner at Adams Capital https://cei.org/ The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a non-profit, libertarian think tank in the United States founded on March 9, 1984, in Washington, D.C., by Fred L. Smith, Jr. It seeks to advance economic liberty by fighting excessive government regulation because it believes that a free marketplace that allows entrepreneurship and innovation to thrive is better policy. Bill Frezza doesn't see much use for government, especially in cyberspace. That's why DigitaLiberty, the Net-freedom advocacy group started last December by Frezza, Bruce Fancher (Phantom Access Technologies CEO and one of the original members of the Legion of Doom), and Mark Stahlman (New Media Associates president) isn't interested in influencing politicians or legislators. "Every time somebody goes to Washington, they get co-opted by the cybercrats and start flying around in Air Force Two," explains Frezza, who was dismayed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation's endorsement of the Digital Telephony Bill that Congress passed last year. (He considers EFF members "Net-Marxists and handmaidens to the Washington cybercrats.") "DigitaLiberty refuses to engage or negotiate," he says. "We're going to build a fire wall around the beltway." Frezza, a telecommunications industry veteran, says the purpose of DigitaLiberty is not to block the latest Net-related bill in Congress, but to construct new global communities and render the government irrelevant. "Once we move the economy into cyberspace," says Frezza, "we're outta here!" To subscribe, send e-mail to digitalibertyrequest@phanton.com, with no subject and the message "INFO DIGITALIBERTY."
Those who remember the DigitaLiberty mailing list will recall Stahlman. I remember his writing to be flamboyant but generally incisive, consistently on the side of individual freedom. Bill Frezza was the ostensible "owner and operator" of the list, but I think Stahlman may have had co-status of some sort. AFAIK, there are no public archives of that list, although I and most likely others have private archives. The list went down a while back, flared up briefly and then vanished again. Just like Duncan Frissell and Sandy Sandfort's Privacy 101, all the good lists seem to just die out. (But Duncan and Sandy are still visibly active, at least, on cypherpunks; I haven't seen more than the occasional brief op-ed from Stahlman, and nothing from Frezza since (Information Week?) was carrying his column.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3a7ac/3a7acf6d8dce4b41e9a02b2215cb38203fcbb4c0" alt=""
https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2019-November/077297.html https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.digitalib.org/ Anyway, it takes a long time for things to truly disappear. I'm sure someone out there can probably chime in with archives of the DigitaLiberty list.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fcc4a/fcc4a44f256d2326dde13b822a12bc28a69d92fa" alt=""
On Saturday, November 2, 2019, 04:37:08 AM PDT, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote: Digital Liberty by Bill Frezza, aka DigitaLiberty https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.digitalib.org/
Anyway, it takes a long time for things to truly disappear.
| | | | Digital Liberty by Bill Frezza, aka DigitaLiberty | | | Particularly, we have relatively recently learned, when they are Hitlery Clinton's "damn emails!". (see Bernie Sanders. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOOfwN0iYxM ) What the Democrats don't "get" was that the main reason Hitlery lost the 2016 election was precisely the revelation of the existence of her illegally-used secret, private server,story of which I seem to recall was broken in about May 2015. And the reason that server and those emails were exposed was due to years of Congressional hearings into the Benghazi attack. (We never heard where Obama and HItlery were, or what they were doing, in those famous "13 hours" of the Benghazi attack." Who here would argue that without that email and server revelation, she still wouldn't have won in 2016? Within days of the time I first heard of the Benghazi attack, I was angry: I did more than wonder out loud why the US Military hadn't 'parked' an AC-130 'Spectre' gunship https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG8A3FXhZ_c over the southern Mediterranean, roughly equidistant to Benghazi and Tripoli, Libya. Maybe 25 minutes away from each target. Because those were probably #1 and #2 of the American targets in the world likely to be attacked. (Libya was virtually without an effective government, very unlike most countries of the world.) Due to the pattern of Al Quada using "9/11" as a signature attack date, America had an amazing advantage: they wouldn't have had to do it all year, maybe just a day or two each year. The idiot Democrats (and, presumably, many knee-jerk military-supporting Republicans, too) would have countered, "they only had x hours of warning!!!". But actually, 'they' had YEARS of warning. Osama Bin Laden had been killed in May 2011, so the 9/11/2011 'anniversary date' was apparently too soon to plan and mount a major counter-attack. But 9/11/2012 was yet another year away! An AC-130 could have been dragged over the ground by an arthritic turtle a few hundred miles during this 1-year period. Naturally, during the hearings, 'everybody' wanted to focus on the questions similar to: 'imagine it's the moment after the first bullets were fired. What would you do differently?'. Because, once those flaming incompetents had allowed 9/11/2012 to arrive without any apparent preparation, everybody could plead that there was nothing he could do! It was too late! But it WASN'T 'too late' a year earlier. Or even a week earlier. Or maybe even a day earlier. I virtually laughed at my TV screen: They should ask, 'imagine it's a year before 9/11/2012, and you strongly suspect that an attack would occur at one or more of the most likely targets on that key anniversary date, a year hence. What should you, the entire U.S. Military, have done to prepare for that eventuality?" Did anybody hear any such a question asked? I never did, and I suspect that the military worked hard behind the scenes to ensure nobody would ever ask that embarrassing question! And naturally, the biased MSM (mainstream media) didn't challenge any of them on this key point. So, I laugh at anybody (especially any Democrat) who claims that the Benghazi hearings were somehow 'wasted'. Even if nothing else was accomplished, those hearings revealed her illegally-used server and its classified emails. (violations of the Federal Records Act and Espionage Act) Hell, those hearings were all that kept us from having at least 4 years of Hitlery as President!!! So, how can those hearings have been a waste?!? (No, I voted for "where's Aleppo" Gary Johnson in 2016, the Libertarian candidate.. It wouldn't have mattered anyway: My state, Washington, went 70% for Hitlery in 2016. Indeed, that's one of my best arguments for voting Libertarian: Unless the outcome in your state is expected to be very close, your vote wouldn't hurt or help voting for D's or R's. So why not 'send a message' and vote for the L's?)
I'm sure someone out there can probably chime in with archives of the DigitaLiberty list.
Could the 'archives' of Digitaliberty occupy any more than a fraction of a single 1.44 megabyte floppy disk? Remember those? I can remember when I bought my first 8-inch floppy disk in 1977, for $5, through a group-purchase at the MITERS student electronic club at MIT. Not the drive, just a single disk!, I think it was a Maxell, with a then-incredible 240 KILOBYTES! of data storage on it! WOW!!! I thought, "How am I ever going to be able to fill that thing up?!? Today, you can buy a 500-gigabye SD card, about as large as your pinky fingernail, that holds 2 MILLION times more data than that 240-kilobyte floppy, and accesses it 100 times faster, to boot. Jim Bell
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fcc4a/fcc4a44f256d2326dde13b822a12bc28a69d92fa" alt=""
On Saturday, November 2, 2019, 03:29:00 AM PDT, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote: https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/10652/1995_Winter.pdf Digital Liberty by Bill Frezza From: email list server To: cpsr-announce@Sunnyside.COM Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 18:38:13 -0800 Subject: DigitaLiberty Friends of Liberty, [snip]
Is DigitaLiberty a political party or a lobbying group? Neither.>DigitaLiberty does not seek to educate or influence politicians in the hope of obtaininglegislation favorable to our constituents. We plan to make politicians and legislatorsirrelevant to the future of network based commerce, education, leisure, and social intercourse.
Hey, my Assassination Politics essay https://cryptome.org/ap.htm was also intended to "make politicians and legislators irrelevant to the future...". But with a little more 'kick' than Bill Frezza apparently intended, huh? Here, I should explain that I never resented Bill for apparently banning the AP idea off Digitaliberty just before it arrived on the Cypherpunks list.. Especially in hindsight, and considering what the Feds later did to me. And I've since found out that he was a respectable businessman at that time (No,I don't mean to imply he's no longer a respectable businessman, BTW), and hosting AP discussions in 1995 was not especially respectable, I suppose. Jim Bell
participants (2)
-
grarpamp
-
jim bell