From: "David C. Lambert" <dcl@panix.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 95 10:16:06 PDT
To: unicorn@polaris.mindport.net
Subject: Re: CYPHERPUNK considered harmful
Message-ID: <199509171657.MAA26446@panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Black Unicorn <unicorn@polaris.mindport.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Sep 1995, David C. Lambert wrote:
>
> > BTW, I'm not for changing the name of the list, but I do see the logic
> > in a more establishment-friendly name to use when lobbying the public.
> 
> Distrubute [sic] watered down cypherpunk "teachings" in more benign forms which 
> hide their true (Ohhh! Scary!) potential in an effort to make them commonly 
> acceptable to joe sixpack.

I believe you misstate the point that people are trying to make.

I haven't seen anyone advocating the "watering down" of any so-called
"teachings" to "hide" any "true potential".  The only thing that people
have mentioned is that some of the less clueful out there have a knee
jerk response to the name "cypherpunk".  That's all.

> Can't we all see what road this leads down?

No.  Please enlighten us.

> At the risk of politicizing the issue, I wouldn't be the first to call this 
> "left-speak" or "term-sanitizing."

And this matters because...?

> Really the core issue is that the citizens of their respective nations 
> need to either:
> 
> 1>  See cryptography for the important individual rights issue that it
> is and latch on to the basic desire for free and unmonitored commerce and 
> exchange without censorship or observation.
> 
> or
> 
> 2>  Decide that they are not interested in the issues because these 
> issues are too radical, or simply because their own political ideas
> fall left (or statist) of this spectrum.

What exactly is it that you feel "the citizens of their respective
nations" are doing right now, if not this?

> in the end I 
> don't care if every joe sixpack on the planet uses real crypto, just so
> long as those I am to conduct commerce (of data or goods) with do.

If this is the case, then I'm at a loss to understand how you fail to see
the merit in a "term-sanitizing", as you put it, in order to make the use
of strong crypto desired and required by Joe Sixpack.  How do you expect
the legality of string crypto to survive unless Joe and his friends exert
political pressure to keep it alive?  Isn't it obvious that unless this
happens, that strong (unescrowed) crypto is on the path to being outlawed
(at least in the US, and several other countries)?

> The final judgement will be in the advantage of velocity and security of 
> transactions and the wealth that this "allocates" to those wise enough to 
> adopt crypto exchange systems.  Evolution in action.  If this makes me 
> elitist, so be it.

Elitist or not, this is beside the point.  People are bringing up political
and rhetorical concerns because they feel that political and persuasive
methods are required *right now* in order to preserve the *legality* of 
strong crypto.  I only care about whether Joe Sixpack wants strong crypto
because if I can't persuade him that he does, he won't help me keep it
legal in my country of residence.  Once it's legality seems safe(r) from
attack, he can go on using rot13 for all I care.


David C. Lambert
dcl@panix.com
(finger for PGP public key)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMFxSiapplsfgM88VAQGj5wQAoY2FQe0rh0InWF1xOmST91QDCy4TrYUj
Y6Vnu/i3yspS/vDsKLMbIYAezAJEtgOPHEOf7Rv1Y4gKDyZNAJbYESXiYTQXD7O3
SNWNtb9nAT6l1RPqsnFR9yWAWYQ1CS3dLRpNpMBIqzL/HnKyKrgitLKQ530XtF8O
78u6jtmsBa4=
=Jgoe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----