From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 08:38:14 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Know Your Net.Enemies Project
In-Reply-To: <olPI84q00YUuIE=vI9@andrew.cmu.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.ULT.3.92.960411114044.21820A-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, Declan B. McCullagh wrote:

> Excerpts from cypherpunks: 11-Apr-96 Re: Know Your Net.Enemies P.. by
> Timothy C. May@got.net
> > Sort of like Nixon's Enemies List?

Don't we already have a list of anti-crypto cypherpunks? That should
definitely be added. I'll write the FUCKING STATIST section.

> > Have we become the enemy?
>
> Tim, I thought that the "Enemies List" name would be seen as a
> deliberate takeoff of Nixon's Enemies List, and what I thought would be
> a humorous working title for the project until a permanent one was
> found. You may remember, BTW, that I don't have the power of the FBI to
> command.
>
> But since I was unclear and since the joke was ill-taken, I apologize.

Cool. In retrospect, I understand that much of what you've been saying in
the last couple months was intended ironically. At least you didn't say
something really over-the-top like "fuck you and your high horse too."
Someone might have taken offense.

> To be clear: I envision this as opposition research. In the context of
> the CDA, it was very useful to know what the family values groups were
> saying -- their arguments and their strategies. A central collection
> point for such research is a useful thing.

I disagree. Anything that bundles together Canter & Siegel, the Family
Research Council, the Church of Scientology, and overzealous prosecutors
in Mannheim and Cincinatti is bound to be so all-encompassing and vague as
to be meaningless. It's like discussing "the Internet Party."

Be sure to talk about Usenet censorship at NIU, those censor-happy
homosexuals at Harvard, those Stanford speech code prosecutions, the
involvement of the Wiesenthal Center in the Zundelmatter, the theft of
conservative newspapers at Stanford and elsewhere, the censorship of, in
the News & Observer's words, an "unconventional view of the Holocaust" at
UMAss Amherst, the censorship of soc.history.war.world-war-ii, the elusive
Eric Carr, those violent threats against David Irving at Berkeley, the
coverup of the number of bits in a byte, and other urban legends.

Nonspecialist idealogues are dangerous. They tend to be sloppy with the
facts. Look at Noam Chomsky; he's an embarrassment to any serious
researcher on US interventionism in Latin America.

-rich