From: Dark <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 93 20:42:15 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Nazis/probability of their mention and/or use to discredit
Message-ID: <199311030439.AA27770@access.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
 
Message 53:
- From owner-cypherpunks@toad.com Mon Nov  1 10:35:58 1993
From: James Still <still@kailua.colorado.edu>
To: 'Cypherpunks List' <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: RE: Nazis/Privacy/Cypherpunks
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 93 09:08:00 PST
 
 
>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.
 
[Stuff Deleted]
 
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:
 
- ->
Let me make clear that I do not (gadzooks appropiate here)
condone any Nazi security measures.  My point was more
to provoke thought about how Nazi security techniques
would pan out in the information age.
 
Again, the question, did they work, is debateable.
<-
 
>[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.
 
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.
 
- ->
I interpreted your ground up analogy incorrectly.
 
I do believe that ideas should be examined and reassembled.
I just think it's silly to rule out anything that might have
merit.  (I guess I'm just determined to be flamed here on
the merit of anything Nazi)
<-
 
- -uni- (Dark)
 
 --- still@kailua.colorado.edu --------------------------------
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3
 
iQCVAgUBLNc0/BibHbaiMfO5AQFrXwQAoxfek4YivmYGsAc21mS6LrRLqTkDXrB1
62o+te0Fge3k2drHiC9oKPEXGa3Aid6/Td3HjDb7IjFsXvAlyD6P/x4IXtVw1W2J
Tb2CnwoNl0mz171iLIjHIHAWcfDqwzU5mYgPb1T5XyntgFJTJ966tvEIYhhfkvcH
nU5EVDMsdyo=
=nSBc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----