Cypherpunks Charter

[Zenaan Harkness]

Aww, come on, I need a little down time...
<cheeky wicked cackle>


On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 12:21:09PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
> (Apologies for rehashing this, but it seems a good time to make another pass at consensus.)
> 
> This is how I always thought about the Cypherpunks charter:
> 
> Cypherpunks exists to promote free speech, establish that free speech includes the freedom to have secure private speech, and to
> explore how this can be accomplished.  In support of this, to understand implications of technology-enabled free speech and the
> technical, commercial, and political moves needed to protect free speech.
> 
> While the Cypherpunk Manifesto focuses mainly on predicting how the then-new ideas might play out, it is very thin on clarity of
> what should happen and what roles those present should play.  I think that was intentional and strategic.  It was also written at
> the beginning of a period of serious conflicts about using encryption at all, public knowledge of encryption and secure methods,
> export, government access and control boundary exploration, etc.
> 
> What this does not include is promoting or bashing particular
> political systems or plotting their demise

"Do not promote or bash particular political systems with which I am
closely associated!"

"Do not plot the demise of particular political systems with which I am
closely associated!"

Or the wrath of SDW shall reign upon thee!


> or constantly going on about insane nonsense.
> 
> 
> What is your concise summary of Cypherpunks?  Can you justify it?  What does the above get wrong and why?

Everyone anarchist has the absolute right, indeed duty, to frame every
debate in the way they so choose, personally, vehemently, with dignity
and disdain for any who impose their personally crazy upon us.

Indeed, any anarchist worth their salt shall diligently ridicule any
framing which appears to intend to bind and threaten the wrath of SDW
for no abiding said frame! :D :D


> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism
> [2] http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html
> 
> Recent commentary repeated for coherency, entertainment, and to forestall the need for certain predictable responses:
> 
> Regardless of what Tim may or may not have wanted to happen in some or all cases, it doesn't say it in his signature, or in the
> manifesto.

"I wish to appeal to external authority, but unfortunately Tim was a bit
of an anarchist, and such a strategic bastard that he left a bunch open
to interpretation."


> Cypherpunks has always straddled a number of areas; exploring the
> implications of crypto-anarchism is one of them.  Even in May's quotes
> in [1], it isn't necessarily the point to have a collapse of a system

"Although it's not exactly necessary to plot the demise of particular
political systems with which I am closely associated, as part of an
ongoing context of conversation which we can conveniently label "cypher
punks", the end of this sentence cannot reasonably be concluded to
contradict my implied assertions at the beginning of this email, so
please ignore this particular part of what Tim may or may not have
said..."


> as a goal, but to examine it as a possibility.  I think the attitude
> is that if you come to believe that encryption and other security
> measures must be available, perhaps as an extension of free speech,
> and those cause weak or broken systems to collapse, then so be it.

"... so let's at the very least frame our debate in the most politically
correct way that we are able."


> Some discussion of "* anarchy" isn't really anarchy,

"Nevertheless, let us pray that folks don't notice my self contradictory
statements, "


> it is just maybe anarchy to someone fixated on a fixed definition of
> their favorite system.

" and my implied ridiculing of those who speak henceforth on their
favourite stupidity, nothing other than their silly fixation, I'll let
you all know now, before such conversations even get under way, so that
we all have a clear fix on how to respond to such ghastly possiblities!"


> Or a signal by someone suggesting such a departure.

"Even a mere signal from some mart arse who suggests by mere implication
to others to get a firecracker up their arse, really needs to be
handled!"


> Any real political anarchy has been a failure.

"As I said, ghastly my good fellows! Absolutely ghastly! We must unite
in curtailing practical anarchy at all costs..."


> The philosophokiddie cypherpunks are thoroughly punked and parodied in
> Mr. Robot:
> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-creator-of-mr-robot-explains-its-hacktivist-and-cult-roots

"... so please join me in ridiculing any such ghastly individuals in
advance, in retrospect, in every which way, may the US Government's
force^B^B^Bpolitical system with which I am closely associated, prevail
upon y'all!"

"sdw, sincerewy distwacting welevance"