From: Moltar Ramone <jlasser@rwd.goucher.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 07:17:07 +0800
To: angels@wavenet.com
Subject: Re: Freedom and security
In-Reply-To: <v01510108a9e71a45899e@[198.147.118.163]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960501103659.28824B-100000@rwd.goucher.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Tue, 30 Apr 1996 angels@wavenet.com wrote:

> The Internet is beyond the stage of small communities exercising informal
> social controls (peer pressure).

Disagree strongly. The net is a LARGE number of SMALL communities. This 
is why spammers are so offensive: they trespass and violate boundries. 
This is why killfiles were invented. You ask about people who don't know 
about killfiles.  Teach them. This requires no formal organization.

> paradise.  Does anyone really doubt the extent of State control and power
> across the Net?

Yes.  If there was state control of the Internet, there probably wouldn't 
be any anonymous remailers. And the Cyberangels would go away.

> My point is that this is inevitable.

Very few things are inevitable; that's a very strong word. The Cypherpunk 
Agenda is to provide exactly those tools which make this "inevitable" 
thing absolutely impossible.

> The Internet is a
> mirror of the rest of the world, not a new form of society, and I fail to
> understand why anyone should be surprised that that is the case.

Disagree modestly.

> I disagree with this statement. I do not believe that laws breed more laws
> nor that laws lead to less freedom.  I believe bad laws compromise freedom
> (eg CDA) while good laws protect freedom.

Have you taken a good hard _honest_ look at the War on Drugs? I also 
believe that bad laws compromise freedom and good laws protect freedom. 
One of the problems is that good laws often breed bad laws to patch 
things up.

> Cryptography enhances and protects privacy, which does not inevitably lead
> to greater security.  Security for the sender, yes, in that no one else can
> read the message, but security for the Community?  Doesnt that depend what
> the message said?

No. True security for the community rests in a shared social standard 
which discourages actions which are harmful to the community or 
individuals. Security which requires a class of Guardians to protect 
everyone else is not security. It's safety, but it's temporary safety.

Jon Lasser
----------
Jon Lasser (410)494-3072                         - Obscenity  is a crutch  for
jlasser@rwd.goucher.edu                            inarticulate motherfuckers.
http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/
Finger for PGP key (1024/EC001E4D)               - Fuck the CDA.