Re: LA Times article on crypto anarchy

[nobody@huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer)]

Hal Finney wrote:
> "'Activity in cyberspace ultimately forecasts the end of national
> control,' said David Post, visiting associate professor of law at
> Georgetown University."
 
> The article goes on to mention digital cash, crypto policy debates,
> problems with the CDA, Germany's attempt to block access to Radikal
> magazine and anti holocast info on the net, and other topics which we
> have discussed at length.  It is good to see these ideas beginning to
> enter the mainstream.
 
> This is what this list and this movement is capable of.  A lot of
> these ideas would not have received their prominence if it were not
> for the cypherpunks.  And of course there are powerful forces arranged
> in opposition.

  Of course, those who attempt to point toward those powerful forces
will be be subjected to ridicule as paranoid conspiracy theorists. And
when they point out the facts concerning the underlying alliances and
motivations behind various actors on the list, then they will be met
with rebuttals that so-and-so had a beer with them, once, and they
seemed like a nice person.
  Big news flash! 
    Nazi's attend the opera and kiss babies.
    Money buys people (even those who deny it to themselves).

  I wish I had a dime for every post I've seen on this list that 
denigrates those that suggest that the list is both followed by,
and subjected to interference by, clandestine agencies and agents.
  "What? Our 'How to build a Nuclear bomb' list is being subjected
to surveillance? How silly!"
  Buy a clue, dudes and dudettes. Cryptography is the new Nuclear
technology of the Information Age. Big Brother is paying attention.

>  How easy they find it to distract us, to fill the list
> with irrelevant discussions!  When I see so many posts which are purely
> flame bait, or which seem to go out of their way to explore trivia as
> though it were of interest, I believe that in at least some cases they
> are intentionally designed to thwart our efforts.

   Most people who recognize this still fail to see the 'thwarting'
that takes place by those whose sole purpose is to spread disinformation
while seeming to agree with the consensus opinion on the list. The 
subtle slants which are a constant undercurrent in their posts are
seldom seen as an attempt to undermine the issues they appear to be
supporting.
 
> I'm not calling for censorship, but I'd like people to be aware of what
> is going on.  Before responding to an off-topic or flaming post, consider
> the motivations of the creators of the thread.  Is it possible that this
> is purely an attempt to fill the list with noise, to drown out discussion
> on more important and relevant topics?

  In some cases, undoubtedly, but anyone who thinks that the flames
and off-topic posts are the enemy on this list are _not_ aware of
what is going on.
  Noise will deflect idiots and lightweights from following the crucial
issues surrounding cryptography, but this in no great loss. The true
loss to the list is when the supposedly intelligent members lose the
capacity to distinguish critical points raised on the list because they
have allowed themselves to fall into the same personality based mode
of censorship as was forcefully imposed on the list.

  Look at the number of people on the list who _boast_ about their
killfiles. They are idiots. Even those who profess to use their 
filters as an information tool seem to base their filtering on
personality, to a large degree.
  The result? They are filtering _into_ view those the disinformation
artists who will lick their dick in order to lead them away from 
areas they don't want to receive too much attention.

  The result of the sheep mentality of cliques who killfile each other
is that if a list member wants to raise an issue outside of his or her
own _clan_ on the list, then they must make NOISE sufficient to draw
in the members of other clans, whose other members will read their
replies.
  Your post might waken a few of the converted to remind them that it
takes an effort to stay on track, but if you had found a way to work
the word "cocksucker" into the list, you would have reached a wider
audience, and perhaps done some good where it will be more effective.
(Or, better yet, badmouth the list Icons.)

  The fact of the matter is, spotting spooks and schills on this list
is a minor matter of the simplest of traffic analysis, given the fact
that so many list members are content to focus their attention only on
the _visible_ enemies that those who use deceit and deception have to
make little effort to cover their tracks.

> Simply being aware of the attack will, I suggest, go a long way towards
> reducing its impact.

  I think that all list members would be well-advised to read your post
and give it serious thought.
  I think, however, that they should also make an attempt to broaden
the concepts you deal with, in their own mind, in order to adjust their
view as to the true nature of the traffic on this list really is.

TruthMonger