From: Bruce Murphy <packrat@ratbox.rattus.uwa.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 22:20:46 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: SS Obergruppenfuhrer Zimmermann (NOT!)
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960124014532.0095ac74@panix.com>
Message-ID: <199601241406.WAA00594@ratbox.rattus.uwa.edu.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In message <2.2.32.19960124014532.0095ac74@panix.com>, 
  Duncan Frissell wrote:
> At 05:11 PM 1/23/96 -0500, Alan Horowitz wrote:
> >The reporter's slander against Zimmerman was not accidental, or the 
> >result of ignorance.  Calling someone a Naxi sympathizer is not something 
> >that one should do without a smoking gun.
> >
> >This act of aggression against cypherpunks, attempts to box us into a 
> >corner. Our enemies want to keep us on the defensive.

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by
stupidity" (or journalists) Of course with paranoia being almost
compulsory around here, it's probably a government plot to discredit
all people who want privacy. To be frank I doubt the NSA or anyone
else is going to bother, they can get what they want *anyway*

> 
> Phil is not a cypherpunk.

He probably should be. I mean, it would mean he only got *one* copy of
mail rather than all those concerned people cc:ing him a copy.

> 
> On the whole, the cypherpunks have gotten very favorable press for a group
> who's actions may render government policies irrelevant and possibly the
> governments themselves.

Mind you, its not as though the government's policies have *ever* been
relevant. Of course, having a less open government in my own country,
no-one has bothered to define what the goverment is going to do re:
trying to enforce low encryption standards or (hah!) censoring the net
in general.

In fact, at least the US *has* a centralish government. Here, where we
have only a handful of quite autonomous states, any one of which could
decide to implement some ridiculous scheme to "crack down on kiddie
porn" which would have the unfortunate effect of removing individual's
rights to privacy.

Which brings me to another point. At least you people *have* a free
speech bit in your constitution. While it's generally considered a
right here, legally that's not really good enough.
--
Packrat (BSc/BE;COSO;Wombat Admin)
Nihil illegitemi carborvndvm.