From: dmandl@bear.com
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 94 07:08:31 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files
Message-ID: <9412271452.AA23162@yeti.bsnet>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Black Unicorn <unicorn%access.digex.net@bear-lock.bear.com> writes:
 
> 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.

Do me a favor, Uni: I want to assassinate you and all the other members
of your family.  Could you send me some powerful handguns and silencers?
Oh, and while you're at it, give me all of your addresses and precise
travel schedules for the next two weeks.  As an "amoralist," I'm sure you
won't put short term morality before my long-term goal.  Thanks.
  
> 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.

I'll judge what I want to, OK?  What are you trying to do, _coerce_ me
into giving information to someone that I don't want to?

> It is simply for the 
> crypto non-challenged to comment on the security or lack thereof of a 
> given system.

Hmm, sounds like you're telling us what to do.  And defining what "we" are,
to boot.  I'm many things besides "crypto non-challenged."  I'm an individual
and an individualist, not a cog with a particular static role in society,
which is apparently the way you'd like it.  If you ask me what the color of
the sky is, I can say "39" if I want.

> As soon as this list turns into a pile of bleeding heart 
> liberals, anxious to embroil themselves in the personal matters of 
> others, it has failed.

Yeah, well it seems you were just as quick as the "bleeding heart liberals"
to scold others and impose your personal (a-)morality.  Typical.
 
> 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.

No one was suppressing anything or in any way attempting to stop the flow
of information.  They were just expressing their opinions.  Just because
_you_ were unhappy with those opinions, that's no reason to hurl accusations
of censorship around.

I can refuse to give help to anyone I don't feel like helping, and if I feel
like giving him a piece of my mind in the process, that's my business and his.

> I submit that the response should have been the same regardless of the 
> nature of the material.
> 
> Which is it going to be?
> 
> 
> 1>
> 
> Q: "How do you attack X?"
> A: "Y"
> 
> or
> 
> 
> 2>
> 
> Q: "How do you attack X?"
> A: "Realistically X should not be attacked, because to allow the 
> widespead lack of confidence in X will destroy society as we know it, and 
> anyhow it's nasty."

Great, I've always wanted to be a simple input-output machine.

Pseudo-individualist Republican rubbish...

   --Dave.