RE: Digital warfare

[ferguson@fiber.sprintlink.net (Paul Ferguson x2044)]

On Fri, 10 Sep 93 20:57:16 EDT,
 <cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com> Carl Ellison wrote -
 
>> 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.
>>
>
>> ferguson@icp.net            |   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 find myself straddling the line most of the time, but I have to
 come down solidly on the side of privacy-advocate, if push came to
 shove. However, push isn't shoving, so we (cypher-punk-advocates)
 should all be able to heterogeneously work our goals -- soild, secure
 and unmolested crypto for the masses. Let's be realistic -- and
 effective.
 
> 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.
 
Anyone who thinks that this battle can be won purely on the grounds of
technology is dead wrong. Political leverage is a factor which we
must, absolutely be striving for.
 
We're getting there, slowly (very slowly) through education, but
digital realization is something that is not going to happen
overnight. The impact has yet to hit home in the public sector.
 
- --
 
On Fri, 10 Sep 1993 21:27:37 -0400,
 Perry E. Metzger <pmetzger@lehman.com> wrote -
 
> Feel free to check my credentials. I assure you I earn more than
> enough money at my job that it wouldn't be worth the FBI's money to
> make the bribe big enough -- it would also have to cover the risk to
> me that being an anarchist presents vis a vis my job -- someday I
> might lose it for having strange political ideas, and salaries like
> mine are hard to come by in other professions.
 
Oh, come now, Perry. Let's be practical. I (on just one side of
this multi-faceted topic), on the other hand, maintain more
conventional idealisms; much more geared towards maintaining
privacy (at all costs) and fighting the big brother machinations
of a government out of control. In my own hairy opinion, anarchy
is a losing strategy, but that is merely a matter of semantics,
not something we should hash out on this list.
 
I believe in the growth of the world-wide matrix; the growth of the
internet -- access for the masses. In fact, that's just what I do to
earn my pay. Filter this, Filter that, BGP this, EGP that, OSPF (oh,
no!). I believe in strong cryptography. I believe in your power (and
mine) to actually endorse and shape the world of digital
communications.
 
Let's just agree that we hold the same views on the matter of
cryptography: it's a powerful tool. In the hands of the masses, it
allows privacy unhindered. Compromised or crippled by the oppressive
forces of a government, it is a weapon against privacy.
 
> I'll fully agree that arguing for anarchy with the general public
> won't work at the current time -- and I agree that our image is
> important. However, at this point the battle is being fought by folks
> like EFF and CPSR. I for one don't see any reason to hide my politics,
> although I try not to make an issue of it.
 
A wise summation. I would like to think that others are as aware of
the political battlefields that must be crossed. I despise the
political machine, but I understand the importance in influencing it
in order to achieve the ideal "space."
 
Government has no damned business in networking.  We do.
 
Paul Ferguson               |   privacy \'pri-va-see\ n, pl, -cies;
Mindbank Consulting Group   |   1: the quality or state of being apart
Fairfax, Virginia USA       |   from others  2: secrecy
fergp@sytex.com             |
ferguson@icp.net            |   Privacy -- Use it or lose it.