From: "Ian Farquhar" <ianf@sydney.sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 94 16:23:06 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.941223231306.17277C-100000@access4.digex.net>
Message-ID: <9412281117.ZM10874@wiley.sydney.sgi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Dec 23, 11:28pm, Black Unicorn wrote:
> > What a load of amoral rubbish.

> By who's standard?  Yours?

Of course.  Whose are you speaking for, if not your own?

> > Cypherpunks is a group whose members believe in the application of
> > technology to PROTECT privacy, not to violate someone else's.
> > Once you assume that capability implies right, you're on very
> > shakey moral ground, but that is exactly what you are saying in this
> > post.  I find that position repellent, and I would be very surprised
> > and not a little disappointed if you find many others here who felt
> > the same way.

> Who the hell are you to define the position of cypherpunks?
> Who the hell are any of us to do this?

I agree.  I thought that it was rather obvious that all of us are
speaking for ourselves.  My statement of position was based on my
perception of the original list statement of intent, and the
discussion I have seen over the last six months.

> I guess I suffered from the silly idea that as a whole, the members of
> the list would not put  short term morality before the long term goal.

Possibly you did, although I question whether the two are incompatible.

> It seems there are those who disagree with me.  I would offer the
> following:  While it may be that Joe Break-Into-Girlfriend's-Files may or
> may not be justified, that is not ours to judge.

Rubbish.  Nor do you seem particularly backwards at being judgemental,
or are you applying a different standard to the issue of what is
right and wrong to discuss as you are to the original discussion?

> I cannot believe that people on this list, those who claim to be
> interested in the preservation of privacy, would support the proposition
> that knowledge about the strength or weakness of a given system should be
> surpressed.

I don't recall anyone who did mention censorship.  I saw a lot of people
suggesting that helping the original pathetic individual was not a
good idea, and then several howls of outrage accusing these people of
censorship.  There is a difference between non-disclosure and censorship,
and its not an arbitrary one either.

> Disgusting.  Get off this list, you belong on alt.codependency.recovery,
> or alt.bleeding.liberal.

But isn't that exactly what you're proposing?  "Get off the list because
your position disagrees with mine."  Sounds like censorship to me,
except that "Black Unicorn" is the one deciding what is acceptable.

							Ian.

#include <std.disclaimer>