PSWD: "The Girlfriend's Opinion"

[ddt@lsd.com (Dave Del Torto)]

At 8:28 pm 12/23/94, Black Unicorn wrote:
>Who the hell are you to define the position of cypherpunks?
>Who the hell are any of us to do this?

Both interesting questions... and self-cancelling ones. As far as I know,
Cypherpunks define their own personal positions and don't impose theirs on
any one else, as you yourself seem to have done, Uni. Your argument, much
like your "standard" is somewhat suspect in my view.

Regarding your language: please tone it down a little? Rely less on ad
hominem flames and the word "shit" and more on the strength of your
arguments and I'd be more inclined to respect your opinions. Once I pick
through your invective, you "seem" to have a point, but you really do go on
a bit, making it a lot of work... are you sober as you write these things?

On the topic: let me relay an interesting little tidbit I heard recently on
radio (Fresh Air/NPR): the forensic psychiatrist who interviewed Jeffery
Dhaumer (sp?) noted that he declines in his book(s) to describe the precise
methods utilized by the killers he investigates in his book, because he
feels that this will provide specific information directly to other
psychopaths on how to be more effective in committing horrible crimes and
eluding law enforcement. I think this rather closely parallels the posting
of specific information on how to compromise the security of systems.
Personally, I support his practice: while he does a very good job of
describing things so that you can understand _why_ a killer did his deeds
and possibly something of _how_ so that _you_ can avoid being killed by
someone trying the same things, he doesn't compromise his responsibility as
a physician. An interesting parallel.

Privacy is Privacy, even if it's your intimate friend's privacy. Just
because someone trusts you, it doesn't give you any rights to their
personal data. I've had supposed "friends" try to break into my personal
files before, so I wouldn't presume to pontificate on who deserves more
privacy: everyone does. The free flow of information on system security is
important, but when it sacrifices someone's privacy. If you intend to post
information on how a system can be compromised, it seems to me that the
responsible thing to do (as a cypherpunk or a physician) is to first notify
the sysadmin or password-owner so as to make sure they've been able to
close their doors, and THEN post the info to others judiciously using only
enough detail as is necessary for educational purposes (like the doctor
above).

Uni, you don't work at a nuclear site, do you?   ;)

Ahem.  Let's move on...
__________________________
BTW, a collective "thanks" to the few of you who have so far sent in Q&A
material for the Beginner's PGP-FAQ. By and large, they are all helpful
suggestions. My only feedback for now is to remind you all that this has to
be VERY basic conceptual material. As the rest of you (hopefully) send me
stuff, please keep this in mind. Imagine you're explaining WHY crypto to a
five-year-old, and HOW PGP to a six-year-old. :)  We really have to aim low
on this one. I'll be working on this for a while and will post a draft for
you all to review as soon as it's ready.

   dave
___________________________________________________________________________
"Rudeness is the penultimate refuge of the Incompetent; violence, the last"