Re: PSWD: "The Girlfriend's Opinion"

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

On Sun, 25 Dec 1994, Dave Del Torto wrote:

> Date: Sun, 25 Dec 1994 05:26:19 -0800
> From: Dave Del Torto <ddt@lsd.com>
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Cc: Ian Farquhar <ianf@sydney.sgi.com>,
>     Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
> Subject: PSWD: "The Girlfriend's Opinion"
> 
> 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.

Specifically?  (I'm always open to such criticisms)

> 
> 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?

I don't drink.  I do have a temper.
Of course you have a point, I did apologize to the list.


> On the topic: let me relay an interesting little tidbit I heard recently on

[...]

> a physician. An interesting parallel.

I agree.

 
> 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).

While I appreciate your attempt to work damage control into the process, 
I simply cannot agree.  The withholding of information, in the 
cryptographic context, is simply not in any sort of alignment with my 
position.  Speaking of health issues is to bring the matter off point.  
Crypto is such that it simply cannot advance without specific and 
DETAILED accounts of flaws and potential attacks.  To withhold this 
information on the grounds that it might be damaging is silly, and 
moreover, potentially catching and slippery slope like.

To withhold it on moral grounds, then to insist that it is in accordance 
with freedom of information and privacy concerns is to see no farther 
than the rims of one's glasses.

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

Nope.


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

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