Nazis/Privacy/Cypherpunks

[Dark <unicorn@access.digex.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
 
 
- -> Observe the following exchange
 
>  I remember reading some time ago that the Nazis had a method of
>trapping communists that went like this:
>  They'd put the suspect in  room and carry on a conversation with him
>(all males, as I remember). 
 
[Stuff deleted, no value judgment implied.]
 
This practice is, IMHO, extremely unethical and dubious at best!
 
If the world's experiences are a metaphorical "object" bundled up in
a <.lib> somewhere in the cosmos, then *anything* that the Nazi's
did should be considered completely bugged code.  Why do we want to
inherit their flawed algorithm's?
 
[See note 1]
 
The whole point of the cypherpunk cause is to compile code from the
ground up--considering the ethics involved with decisions such as
rooting out 'nyms.
 
[See note 2]
 
Have we decided that it is now imperative to know the identities
of those on 'our' side (further fueling this polarization of 'us'
versus 'them')?
 
Let's leave behind this obsession with determining who's who; it
has taken us too close to the kluged code of Nazi history!  My eye
is on the prize...  ;)
 
[See note 3]
 
 --- still@kailua.colorado.edu ------------------------------------
 
 
 
- -> so...
 
[Note 1]
Personally, I don't rule out examination of Nazi tactics as a
worst case scenario model.  Let's face it, as ugly and dark as
Nazi rule was, they did some things quite efficiently indeed.
 
Take state security.  The Nazi's had so perfected the process of
identifying dissidents and quashing opposition that aside from
the high ranking traitors, war time and early pre-war Nazi
Germany was probably the most stable dictatorship in history.
(From an internal and counter intelligence perspective anyhow
[See Barry Posen for more.])  The price, of course, was the death
of many, many innocents who were just perceived as threats
(camps aside.)
 
To rule out Nazi approaches, especially when dealing with
intelligence and counter-intelligence issues (which IMHO is
basically what cypherpunks is all about on some level or
another...) is plain silly. Current intelligence practices are
based a great deal on what was learned in WWII (OSS being
the basis for today's CIA etc...) I'll begin to differ when you start
talking about medical issues.
 
[Note 2]
No one writes code from "the bottom up" in the manner that you
suggest.  If that were the case we'd see the wheel invented time
and time again.  One of the reasons this mailing list exists is to
accomplish exactly the opposite.  That being to incorporate common
or even fringe ideas into the development of code for the common
purpose (The Prize as you adeptly put it.) so we don't HAVE to
build from the ground up every time.
 
[Note 3]
One of the ways we learn is through trial and error amongst
ourselves. It's funny that the list is beginning to lose some of
the major personas that were here when I first joined last fall
(winter?) Cypherpunks was a collection of experts, and newbies
all feeding off each other to push the technologies farther and
make a social impact encouraging privacy in the process.
Where better to defeat anonymous posting and improve the art
than among ourselves?
 
This brings up a side issue for me, and incidentally the reason I
rejoined cypherpunks (aside from my brief loss of net access
when I went back to Liechtenstein this summer).  More and more,
where I look, I see privacy in this country eroded.  It has gotten
to the point where I can see no other direction now than the
centralization of government in an age where technology makes
it a joke to keep track of individuals from what they buy, to which
toll booths they drive through, to which bank tellers they use, to
what they "Publish" on the net.
I feel that a hands on approach for government becomes more
and more dangerous the farther technology progresses.  Information technology is like nuclear technology in this way, you just can't tell
how it will be applied, to liberate, or to oppress.  Either is possible.
Will something not have to give if we are to be reasonably secure
in the belief that a brutal and powerful dictatorship will not
succeed in this country?
I will be the first to admit that the U.S. is not likely to fall to
such a fate in the next (insert number appropriate to your ideology
here) years, but if it does, it will be a dictatorship/authoritarian/
centralized power the likes of which no one has ever seen.
The tools exist to make freedom meaningless.  Personally I'm
not secure enough relying on the balance of powers as the
only safeguard.  The omnipotence that any authoritarian power
would have in this country, a country where the pizza delivery
man punches up your usual order and doesn't have to ask for your
address or credit card number when you call (In 2 years will they
have to answer the phone at all?), is staggering in its scope.
 
If the Nazi's took power in such an environment... phew.
 
Personally (yet again) with the prospect of national health care,
the card to be issued at birth, and the adjoining files to be collected
on anyone who claims anything under it, I am that much more
sure that everyone should establish three or four identities complete
with documentation before acquiring such documentation becomes impossible anymore.
(Speaking of which, does anyone know if the Social Security act of
1974 which limited the use of Social Security numbers and tried to
form some basic (albeit limited) privacy to card holders has any
counterpart in the health card?)
 
There is great safety in anonymity.  I intend to keep it.
 
- -uni- (Dark)
 
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3
 
iQCVAgUBLNGb1xibHbaiMfO5AQH2QgP+KkvBHohXgFMEhotPPSwFgqWta5E+KTuk
tfSSFLO0EyoERFUz6mZPU6cKFpxAgpX5aHNeHsfAwLs0WRQs+T4ZE7cJDgDS215F
gmhUaHKpBfgwQz5aoT1EHnGcLRZCQl9h2uAXubpnHUUb1d+sBWUNRnFJKkKmBIZ+
eODsv0JZHEc=
=yXrJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----