On 9/5/16 1:24 PM, John Young wrote:

     Also Eric Hughes: A Cypherpunk's Manifesto, 9 March 1993
     [1]http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html

   Yes, I should have included that link.  Let's call it [EricCM].  I just
   reread it a day or two ago.  My short statement is an attempt to
   condense that to its essence.

     Understanding distinction between privacy and secrecy is essential,
     for it is secrecy that corrupts in all its forms and is totally
     hostile to
     privacy, and true privacy totally hostile to secrecy. Privacy
     policies are
     fraudulent because they allow secretkeepers to violate privacy with
     "lawful" impunity. Which is why Snowden, Tor, media, corporations,
     NGOs, security experts, dual hatters, lawyers, privileged parties of
     all stripes, and many others are masterful bullshitters to urge
     "curation," censorship, withholding, redacting information by
     which secretkeepers empower themselves against the public by
     "self-regulated" access, that is self-serving.

   That seems like a nuanced use of 'secrecy'.  This extends what is in
   [EricCM].  If you want your own privacy but you want to deprive others,
   whether individual or organization, of theirs, I think you need to be
   specific about what situations you are talking about.

     It is ridiculous to believe technical crypto by itself will not be
     subverted
     for political purposes, that mathematics will provide sufficient
     protection
     against wily opponents lawfully empowered to use any methods
     required
     to exploit vulnerabilities in people, technology, governance
     (standards
     setting, education, contracts, advisory boards, prizes, leaks,
     bribery,
     coercion -- partially listed in the troll tools, but far from all).

   Where is the line between "used for efficient and safe functioning of
   government" and "subverted for political purposes"?  Debating that line
   seems off topic.

     From day one and continuing, cypherpunks warned of the unavoidable
     corruption of the list by malevolent subscribers, as well as of the
     Internet and digital technology in general. This malevolence has
     come to pass worldwide, through a range of treacheries from
     anonymization to crypto to HTTPS to OTR to leak sites to
     universities,
     to whatever tool is funded and promoted as the hot shit latest means
     to defy authority. Authority always wins. As authority bullshits and
     honors and hires those too timid to exceed conventional cowardice.

   Authority always wins because, in a healthy system, authority is us.
   You have to first narrow your scope to 'abusers' or 'actually corrupt
   politicians' or similar if you want to 'win' against them.  This is the
   same problem as treating all civilians as criminals or thugs or
   whatever: If you aren't specific, you fail.

     Few cypherpunks have gone to jail for their convictions, many more
     have
     gone on to pretty good paying jobs, start-ups, buy-outs by IBM, MS,
     Cisco,
     Google, others in cahoots with authority. But some have seduced
     others to
     go to jail, crying ACLU-EFF-Greenwald grade crocodile tears at the
     injustice
     (advertising "donate to us" for the poor suckers). Blaming the
     victim of
     this seduction is rife as it is in deliberately faulty, highly
     monetized comsec.
     If all goes well, cataclismic cyberwar will provide the doomsday
     climax to
     persistent cypherpunk screwing. Assange aims at just that having
     imbibed
     the cryptoanarchy joy juice here. Tim May will continue to ridicule
     the fool
     as he did Jim Bell and CJ. This is the cypherpunk secret charter for
     being
     a bullshitting "force for good."

   Playing here and making good life choices are all about critical
   thinking.  If you have gaps there, they may be amplified here.
   Assange may or may not have had an interesting point in certain past
   situations.  But, at a glance, his preoccupation with
   Hillary-insanity-complex and doing anything to feed it seems terminal.
   As noted in an article from the last couple days, Hillary's problems
   really started when she decided to be private about Whitewater
   details.  That attempt at privacy caused everyone to flip out.  Kind of
   ironic as Eric's Manifesto specifically encourages privacy.

     [1]
     [2]<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism>[3]https://en.wik
     ipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism
     [2] [4]http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html

   sdw

References

   1. http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html
   2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism
   3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism
   4. http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html