1998-03-25 - Re: Welcome to cypherpunks-unedited

Header Data

From: StanSquncr <StanSquncr@aol.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 9f6504d1e3f66b9a766794e47497b4473c46db381b1e75198ea78c85b988528f
Message ID: <44e512a9.35186235@aol.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1998-03-25 01:48:08 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 17:48:08 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: StanSquncr <StanSquncr@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 17:48:08 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Welcome to cypherpunks-unedited
Message-ID: <44e512a9.35186235@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In a message dated 98-03-24 19:18:48 EST, Majordomo@toad.com writes:

<< Cypherpunks assume privacy is a good thing and wish there were more of it.

Cypherpunks acknowledge that those who want privacy must create it for
themselves and not expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless
organizations to grant them privacy out of beneficence.  Cypherpunks know that
people have been creating their own privacy for centuries with whispers,
envelopes, closed doors, and couriers.  Cypherpunks do not seek to prevent
other people from speaking about their experiences or their opinions. >>

I agree with all that.

 
<< ...  Cypherpunks love to practice.  They love to play with public key
cryptography.  ... >>

But when it's used as simply a means of identifying yourself on a public list,
is that really privacy protection?  Seems like a mis-use of the technology to
me.

Stan





Thread