Re: Crypto Takes a Holiday (NYET, Children, etc.)

[rah@shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga)]

At  3:16 PM 7/31/94 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote:
>>
>> [remove reflective headgear, cough, adjust nomex underwear, blow whistle..]

[...]
>
>Chill out. [...]

Damn. Every time I put on that asbestos suit, Tim brings out the napalm....

>The connection, tenuous (but no more tenuous that a hundred other
>threads these past two years), is that of source-level or
>receiver-level blocking is central to many of the proposals here and
>in general:
>
>* Centralized control: Source-level blocking.

vs.

>* Decentralized, market control: Receiver-level blocking.

>Strong crypto makes the second view impossible to stop.
>
>Is this enough of a connection?

Tim, you just made my point. It makes the whole thread moot, and any
participation in what appears to be a holy war about it for other reasons
(like thrashing someone theologically) is a waste of time.

>I doubt I can convince Nathan Zooks that his idea for a world-wide
>police state to ensure that children are not exposed to anti-Christian
>material is a lousy idea, or that I can convince Mike Duvos that his idea
>of mandating access to Nathan's "Funny Mentalist" children so as to
>de-program them is an equally lousy idea, but I sure do hope I can
>convince most of you that central control just doesn't work.

Just like Tom Paine, you're reducing things to extremes, Tim. Useful when
providing the ideological motivation for a particular political action, but
not helpful in a jihad between people who are allies on any other
significant topic of discussion on this list.

Mr. Zooks can't help but believe what he does because it's a logical
consequence of his deeply-held religion. Mr. Duvos' strong belief in the
evils of Fun-damn-mentalism, while laudible in my *personal* opinion, seems
to prevent him from ignoring an opportunity to thrash anybody with those
beliefs. Neither one of them is as comical as you portray them.

My point is, we shouldn't perpetuate the brawl on the field by clearing the
benches in solidarity with our theological soulmates.

>
>Let the ideas compete, but don't argue for a Net that is what the
>Unites States was ostensibly organized to avoid.

Yes, and I believe there are at least a dozen newsgroups out there where
this kind of ideological warfare can be played out, keeping the s/n ratio
here in better shape.

A slow news day on the list is not a good excuse to keep the bandwidth
allocated with a pissing match about who's religious paradigm is bigger.

Cordially(!),
Bob Hettinga

-----------------
Robert Hettinga  (rah@shipwright.com) "There is no difference between someone
Shipwright Development Corporation     who eats too little and sees Heaven and
44 Farquhar Street                       someone who drinks too much and sees
Boston, MA 02331 USA                       snakes." -- Bertrand Russell
(617) 323-7923