Cypherpunks and terrorism

[Lucky Green]

Nomen wrote, replying to Greg:
---------------
You're about to begin running a remailer.  Apparently you haven't done
so before.  Well, it should be quite an education.  Keep it up for a
year and you'll be more qualified to judge whether this technology is
good or bad, on balance.  One thing is certain: if you go into it just
because you think it will be an "interesting project", you won't stay
with it for long.
---------------

LOL. Greg ran a remailer long before you apparently knew what a remailer
was. Greg, as most of us who first subscribed to this list in 93 or 94,
undoubtedly long has made up his mind as to the societal and individual
benefits of encryption technology and remailers. What I find puzzling is
where along the way we picked up the fair-weather "Cypherpunks" who are
still grappling with Nomen's questions.

Even more puzzling is that the discussion of crypto vs. safety is taking
place at all. Crypto is out there, never to return back into the folds of
governmental or law enforcement control. The horse had left the barn in the
early 90's. It is /long/ gone. Even if the US were to outlaw the use of
unescrowed encryption by every resident of the this planet today, it would
have *zero* impact on the availability of strong crypto to criminals and
terrorists. Banning crypto would not increase anybody's safety. Except
perhaps the safety in office of dictatorial incumbent politicians. Which is
no concern of mine.

Of course, those calling for a ban on strong crypto are fully aware of this
undeniable fact. Preventing terrorists from using crypto is not their
objective, increasing the safety of you and me is not their goal.

It is controlling our speech and thoughts that they are after. But they get
there without the cooperation of the gullible.

Resist!

--Lucky