Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files

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

On Sat, 24 Dec 1994, James A. Donald wrote:

> Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 00:11:50 -0800 (PST)
> From: James A. Donald <jamesd@netcom.com>
> To: Jonathon Fletcher <jonathon.fletcher@psych.stir.ac.uk>
> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files
> 
> On Sat, 24 Dec 1994, Jonathon Fletcher wrote:
> > 
> >   It seems a little strange that cypherpunks are arguing over whether or
> > not to disclose information about a (supposedly) cryptographic product
> > to a certain individual.
> 
> The criticism was that the proposed use of the knowledge was wrong
> -- not that the knowledge was wrong.

You can only go two ways with this, either of which is self defeating.

1>  All potentially damaging information, by virtue of it's potential 
"wrongful use" shall be banned.

2>  All information clearly going to be used for the "wrong purposes" 
shall be restricted.


There is simply no other way to restrict information as you propose.

The result in 1>, I think is quite clear.

The result in 2>, requires some ONE, some GROUP to decide what is and is 
not A> "clearly going to be used for," B> "the wrong purposes."
Of course, now I want to know, what "objective" (read subjective to 
conventional wisdom) tests are going to be made to determine these 
criteria, who is going to make them, and who will enforce them?

You end up with either a cut throat thought police regime, or slightly 
less offensive paternalistic censorship.  You choose, what is it you want 
to have?

A> complete amorality in that everything is restricted, (which is what
restricting anything with potential harm essentially means), B> select
morality, imposed by criteria lacking any objective element, as such
criteria must always be subjective, or C> complete amorality in that
everything is allowed.

> 
> Then there was a larger debate -- is morality a threat to liberty,
> or is coercion the only serious threat to liberty.
> 

This completely evades the point.  Your question refuses to acknowledge 
potential differences in the application and structure of morality.

> Now if you are eighteen or so, or if you have retarded emotional
> development, the fact that it is real hard to get laid may seem
> positive and powerful proof that morality is indeed a grave threat
> to liberty.
>

Evades the point, applies a silly analogy to Mr. Norton cracker, and then 
couples it with a crack about his potential age and mental facilities, a 
crack hardly as inappropiate as mine last night.

> But of course the fact that it is real hard to get laid is a result
> of sociobiology, not of cultural values and morality.

Unless your Christian and unmarried.

>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our
> property, because of the kind of animals that we        James A. Donald
> are.  True law derives from this right, not from
> the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.            jamesd@netcom.com
> 

-uni- (Dark)

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