Cypherpunks and terrorism

[Nomen Nescio]

Declan McCullagh writes:
> 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.

It's always amazing to see how stupid the responses are to various
messages.  There seems to be no limit to the ignorance of the cypherpunks.

It is well known that this is a motivation for many terrorists.  If you
will not believe it from an anonymous message, perhaps you will be
convinced by quotes from the two co-founders of the cypherpunks, both
of whom have said exactly the same thing in messages posted today:

Tim May wrote in 1996 and reposted today:

: Revolutionary theory says of course that this increased clampdown is a
: desired effect of terrorist bombings and attacks. Fear and doubt.
: Revolutionary ends rarely happen by slow, incremental movement. Hundreds of
: examples, from the original "bomb-throwing anarchists" to the modern mix of
: terrorist bands. The Red Brigade in Italy sought a fascist crackdown, and
: the "strategy of tension" is common. (And even revolutionists of crypto
: anarchist persuasion often think laws like the CDA are good in the long
: run, by undermining respect for authority and triggering more extreme
: reactions....)

Note his comment about how the Communications Decency Act is actually
considered good by revolutionaries of the crypto anarchist persuasion.
Know any of those?  Gee, the anonymous message made exactly the same point
earlier, that someone like Tim May would welcome crackdowns on freedom.

Eric Hughes wrote today (in a beautiful message that deserves to be
widely distributed):

: The goal of these terrorists is to 
: restrict freedoms in America, to steal its essence and to weaken it.  I 
: shall pray we do not cooperate with this their goal in a hot-headed rush to 
: immediate results.

The same point, made each time: that the terrorists seek to weaken America
by causing what Tim May calls an "increased clampdown", what Eric Hughes
describes as "to restrict freedoms in America", and what the anonymous
poster characterized as "a crackdown on liberties".  The difference is
that Tim May welcomes the change; Eric Hughes pleads against it; and
the anonymous poster merely calls upon cypherpunks to recognize that
they have a choice between these contrasting views.

There are two contrasting forces at the heart of the cypherpunk
philosophy, well exemplified by the two co-founders, and their messages
posted today show the difference well.

The dark anger of May versus the bright hope of Hughes.  Make your choice.