anti-prosecution tactics. (Was Re:)

rysiek rysiek at hackerspace.pl
Thu Jan 16 12:49:33 PST 2014


OHAI,

Dnia czwartek, 16 stycznia 2014 14:25:51 Troy Benjegerdes pisze:
> > So please tell us, oh enlightened one, what is the threat model?
> > 
> > Because I would say the exact same thing about those who badmouth privacy
> > advocates and privacy itself: obviously those in power have vested
> > interests in violating privacy, be it for monetary, or political gain.
> > 
> > They have vested interests in convincing the unwashed masses that either
> > "privacy is dead", "privacy is not needed" or "privacy is impossible". So
> > that they can more easily spy upon us all, and so that it gets that
> > harder for privacy-conscious people to maintain their privacy (as that is
> > an ecology, if you do not maintain your privacy, information about you
> > might help somebody to deduce information about me).
> > 
> > I would say that the vested interest is more clear in the above than in
> > what you stated. So please tell me, what do I not see, or (if I am
> > "working for the man"), where's the cash that I must've gotten for my
> > services over the years?..
> 
> I'm going to trust you when you say you are an advocate for all the right
> reasons.

Cool. :)

> I also like to trust, but verify. I cannot verify without invading your
> privacy, and since that's important to you, I won't.

Not true. You can verify my public actions, my public statements. What matters 
in the end is if the result is right. If my actions, my statements were 
conducive towards better privacy or bettering of our common human condition, 
one can assume with high degree of certainty that my reasons were right. If 
not, well, woe is me.

> The vested interests absolutely would love us all to believe privacy is
> dead, but will not themselves give it up, making for an extreme imbalance
> of power.

And information assymetry. That's why we have to build our own tools and use 
them to guard our own privacy.

> I, on the other hand, am a person. I am not, however, particularly private,
> because it costs me too fucking much in terms of money, time, and paranoia
> to actually test and verify that shit I think is supposed to be private
> actually is.

Well, there is always the element of trust. I have to (I don't have the time, 
money, etc to verify myself) trust my hardware and software to some extent.

But I *can* choose hardware and software in a way that should make that trust 
better founded. Free software, open hardware. I use an "ancient" Nokia N900, 
which is by far not ideal, still much better than any iPhone.

I can make listeners' lives harder. And I do.

> What I want is for private cypherpunks and transparent cypherpunks to
> respect each other's values and spill the secrets of the fuckers who say
> privacy is dead but will only themselves give it up in the cold grip of the
> grave.

Abso-fucking-lutely! Still, I would like to know what is the threat model you 
were talking about. I don't see how advocating privacy and anonymity can be 
sinister -- apart from using these terms in context that these terms have no 
purpose other than muddying the waters (i.e. "privacy of government agencies 
or corporations").

-- 
Pozdr
rysiek
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 316 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20140116/a378e569/attachment-0002.sig>


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list