[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Digital warfare
>Date: Fri, 10 Sep 93 19:40:37 -0500
>From: [email protected] (Paul Ferguson x2044)
>Message-Id: <[email protected]>
>Subject: Digital warfare
>> So, if you see folks using BlackNet for advertising Intel
>> chips....
>
> That's an interesting point (images of "Wild Palms" conjured).
> This _is_ the wave of the future, as Tim implies, and it's
> unfortunate that instances such as this (segway) tarnishes what
> it is that I think many of us are trying to espouse in the
> cypherpunk movement.
>
>[email protected] | Privacy -- Use it or lose it.
I have heard cypherpunks described as two groups under one label:
1. those of us who advocate privacy in private hands
2. those who advocate anarchy
I'm in the privacy camp and worry that enough talk from the anarchists
will cause the privacy to be attacked. I fully expect total retaliation
by the governments of the world against any effective anarchy. The wilder
the threats (even if they're not real), the stronger the retaliation.
We could lose all privacy as a result.
It's important not to give the government any excuse which would make the
populace side with them against us. This is a political battle and we need
the people on our side.
For example, crypto-anarchic banks -- cute idea -- but if you ever want a
cop to make your banker give you the money, the banker can't be anonymous
and neither can you account be. ..so you have to *really* trust this
banker. Maybe some people will trust such a banker enough. But,
meanwhile, talk of total tax evasion by the more excited of our
crypto-anarchy brethren might give the government the political ammunition
it needs.
In fact, if the FBI has planted agents on this list, I wouldn't be
surprised to discover someday that they were among the vocal anarchists.
- Carl