From: Anonymous <nowhere@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 93 10:53:23 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: The "Cypherpunk Melting Pot"
Message-ID: <9309121749.AA00279@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sun, 12 Sep 93 00:54:18 PDT,
 <uunet!alumni.cco.caltech.edu!nobody> wrote -
 
> Some comments on the relationship between anarchy and
> privacy:
>
> 1.  There have been some recent posts suggesting that
>     privacy is not fundamentally subversive of
>     government, and that cypherpunks should emphasize
>     the privacy and keep quite about the anarchy.  I
>     find these arguments disingenuous in the extreme,
>     and strategically unsound as well.
 
 
Bullshit. Privacy is not inherently subversive at all. If you
take the time to browse back through the Bill of Rights, you might
recognize this paragraph -
 
                     ARTICLE IV
 
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized.
 
 
 
> 3.  The government has shown by its behavior that it
>     believes that privacy is fundamentally subversive.
 
This is not necessarily true. I agree that Big Brother has gone
to the extreme to violate individual privacy in the modern day, but
just how does this tie into anarchy? To solely entwine these two
idealisms is, in my opinion, a bankrupt strategy. I believe in strong
crypto, I believe in privacy. Pinch-hitting for anarchy will damage
work for privacy causes.
 
> 4.  I personally find privacy, in itself, only mildly
>     interesting.  As a tool to undermine the government,
>     I find it VERY EXCITING INDEED.
 
Excitement does not define the deed or the end result. Get your cheap
thrills at someone else's expense.
 
> 5.  Cypherpunks' mission is to evangelize the use of
>     privacy.  Sell the sizzle, not the steak!  Privacy
>     is the steak.  The sizzle is the possibility of
>     GETTING AWAY WITH SOMETHING.
 
"Getting away" with privacy is an oxymoron in itself. Privacy should
be something that we all have and enjoy as individuals, not simply as
guaranteed under the Constitution, but as a human right that is owed
each of us globally. I'll stand by you in a fight for privacy, but I
won't be party to anarchic idealisms that I believe will do more
damage to the privacy cause in the long run.