Re: Soldier of Fortune

[Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>]

M >
M >This seems counterproductive. PGP should not be portrayed as a tool  
M >for those that most Americans consider antisocial.
M >
M >M Carling
M >

A quote from pgpdoc1.doc:

 "If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy.  Intelligence
     agencies have access to good cryptographic technology.  So do the big
     arms and drug traffickers.  So do defense contractors, oil companies,
     and other corporate giants.  But ordinary people and grassroots
     political organizations mostly have not had access to affordable
     "military grade" public-key cryptographic technology.  Until now."


Now Phil wrote PGP in part so that "grassroots" political organizations 
could have strong crypto.  SOF is a "grassroots political organization."  

It happens that some people don't like SOF.  It happens that some other 
people think that the organizations that Phil was thinking of when he 
wrote PGP are unamerican communist front organizations who should be on 
the Attorney General's List (if we still had an Attorney General's 
List)(if we still had an Attorney General).  Tastes differ.

The point of cypherpunks is that everyone (even FBI agents) should have 
strong crypto if they want it.

I know that Phil feels a personal sense of embarrassment at being adopted 
by all sorts of nut groups (including ourselves) and he has pleaded for 
stories of "worthy PGP use."  Standards of worthiness will vary.

DCF   

Who, as it happens, *is* a member of an organization on the Attorney 
General's list.

--- WinQwk 2.0b#1165