From: James Still <still@kailua.colorado.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 93 07:09:46 PST
To: 'Cypherpunks List' <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: RE: Nazis/Privacy/Cypherpunks
Message-ID: <2CD5431A@kailua.colorado.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>Personally, I don't rule out examination of Nazi tactics as a
>worst case scenario model.  Let's face it, as ugly and dark as
>Nazi rule was, they did some things quite efficiently indeed.
>
> [...]
>
>To rule out Nazi approaches, especially when dealing with
>intelligence and counter-intelligence issues (which IMHO is
>basically what cypherpunks is all about on some level or
>another...) is plain silly. Current intelligence practices are

If I understand your basic point to be:  "consider the worst
possible scenario in order to better prepare for it" then I
agree completely.  However I have serious reservations with
emulating or (gadzooks!) *admiring* those Nazi tactics that
seemed to "work" because I would disagree that, first they
actually did work, and more importantly, that their ends
justified the means.  Which brings me to your second point:


>[Note 2]
>No one writes code from "the bottom up" in the manner that you
>suggest.  If that were the case we'd see the wheel invented time
>and time again.  One of the reasons this mailing list exists is to
>accomplish exactly the opposite.  That being to incorporate common
>or even fringe ideas into the development of code for the common
>purpose (The Prize as you adeptly put it.) so we don't HAVE to
>build from the ground up every time.

I disagree.  (Semantics check:  I'm not talking about a mouse driver
or a basic windowing interface here.  Obviously, there's no need to
hammer out that wheel again.)

I am talking about what I see as a basic cypherpunk mission, that
being, "the constant reevaluation of the approach towards privacy."
We have the ability to constantly rip apart our own ideas, like
children's ABC blocks, and see if they fit back together again
in a better way.  I would prefer to see constant rewrite's of a
"given" (like PGP for instance) than to stagnate and rely on the
one idea, concept, or proof just because we've always done it
that way.  Our code should be like our ethics: constantly re-
evaluated, questioned, and tested for validity.

 --- still@kailua.colorado.edu --------------------------------