Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>]

On Fri, 23 Dec 1994, Ian Farquhar wrote:

> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 14:52:06 -0500
> From: Ian Farquhar <ianf@sydney.sgi.com>
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files
> 
> On Dec 22,  9:46pm, Mark Terka wrote:
> > GROAN! What the hell is this list about anyway?????? I think we are losing
> > perspective about encryption, privacy etc etc...
> 
> > Putting it quite simply, the individual was asking about how to make an
> attack
> > on an opponent. Whether that opponent is a girlfriend, spouse, competitor or
> > terrorist group, who cares? Lets save the sermonizing for Ann Landers...what
> > state the relationship is irrelevant.
> 
> What a load of amoral rubbish.

By who's standard?  Yours?

> 
> Cypherpunks is a group whose members believe in the application of
> technology to PROTECT privacy, not to violate someone else's.
> Once you assume that capability implies right, you're on very
> shakey moral ground, but that is exactly what you are saying in this
> post.  I find that position repellent, and I would be very surprised
> and not a little disappointed if you find many others here who felt
> the same way.

Who the hell are you to define the position of cypherpunks?
Who the hell are any of us to do this?

I guess I suffered from the silly idea that as a whole, the members of 
the list would not put  short term morality before the long term goal.  
It seems there are those who disagree with me.  I would offer the 
following:  While it may be that Joe Break-Into-Girlfriend's-Files may or 
may not be justified, that is not ours to judge.  It is simply for the 
crypto non-challenged to comment on the security or lack thereof of a 
given system.  As soon as this list turns into a pile of bleeding heart 
liberals, anxious to embroil themselves in the personal matters of 
others, it has failed.

I cannot believe that people on this list, those who claim to be 
interested in the preservation of privacy, would support the proposition 
that knowledge about the strength or weakness of a given system should be 
surpressed.  What the hell is that?  I guess no one who supports this 
position has ANY business >WHATSOEVER< in pointing out that digital 
cellular has a low level of security than it is advertized as, or that 
Clipper is compromised.  Who the hell are you people to second guess?

Back to security through obscurity I suppose.  How typical.  What a 
perversion.

Freedom of information, except where that information may violate 
principals we define, and enforce.

Strong crypto for all, except those who would use weak systems, those we 
will keep in ignorance, and refuse to educate in any manner.

Denouncement of insecure crypto security, unless of course, it might tend 
to offend someone, the definition of offense we shall, of course, define.

What a load of sanctamonous crap.

We will decide what's good for you, and what you are allowed to know.

Disgusting.  Get off this list, you belong on alt.codependency.recovery, 
or alt.bleeding.liberal.


> > I bet the poster would have gotten a more sympathetic response if he said he
> > had gotton his hands on a diplomatic cable....

I submit that the response should have been the same regardless of the 
nature of the material.

Which is it going to be?


1>

Q: "How do you attack X?"
A: "Y"

or


2>

Q: "How do you attack X?"
A: "Realistically X should not be attacked, because to allow the 
widespead lack of confidence in X will destroy society as we know it, and 
anyhow it's nasty."


> Possibly.  IMO, what the original requester was asking for was so 
> repulsive and immature that the responses so far have been mild.

Who are you to judge?  Take it to alt.partronizing.jerk

> 
> 							Ian.
> 
> 

-uni- (Dark)


073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa    -    wichtig!