progression of technologies

Juan juan.g71 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 25 20:01:27 PDT 2015


On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 01:22:17 +0900
Lodewijk andré de la porte <l at odewijk.nl> wrote:

> 2015-06-25 21:44 GMT+09:00 z9wahqvh <z9wahqvh at gmail.com>:
> 
> > this is absolutely tremendous, original, and insightful. in my
> > opinion.
> 
> 
> This is exceedingly strange coming from an In-Q-Tel security officer.



	L, perhaps you are not yet appreciating the true nature of
	american oligarchy. 


	"Think of it: an entire nation founded on saying one thing and
	doing another!" 




> In-Q-Tel basically invests in anything performing more collections in
> the US. Does Dan Geer worry for the future, and effectively betray
> In-Q-Tel? 


	In a parallel universe in which we're overdosing on LSD, maybe
	he does. But in the real world...


	http://cryptome.org/cyberinsecurity.htm


	That's pure terrorist talk. 'Official' terrorism of course.
	Bottom line being : because of microsoft, NATIONAL SECURITY is
	at risk.

	Curiously enough, they don't bother to mention that microsoft is
	a monopoly thanks to the state granted privileges of 'patents'
	and 'copyright'. 


-----------------------------


Cartman: 	I learned somethin' today. This country was founded by
some of the smartest thinkers the world has ever seen. And they knew
one thing: that a truly great country can go to war, and at the same
time, act like it doesn't want to. You people who are for the war, you
need the protesters. Because they make the country look like it's made
of sane, caring individuals. And you people who are anti-war, you need
these flag-wavers, because, if our whole country was made up of nothing
but soft pussy protesters, we'd get taken down in a second. That's why
the founding fathers decided we should have both. It's called "having
your cake and eating it too." 

Randy: 	He's right. The strength of this country is the ability
to do one thing and say another. 





> Does he want to prevent anyone *else* from getting the nice
> intel? What exactly does he want to make information processors
> liable for?
> 
> How can law prevent third parties associating freely available
> information?





More information about the cypherpunks mailing list