Re: Soldier of Fortune

I happen to like SOF, and I don't think most Americans have a bad  
opinion of it (certainly some do, but that is true of any  
publication). But SOF's appeal is much broader than just "mercs and  
wannabees" [Sandy's words], and that "mercs and wannabees" is  
probably the subfocus of SOF that most Americans find the least  
tasteful of what SOF is about. Most Americans don't think highly of  
mercenaries. If anyone is going write something for SOF about PGP, I  
hope that the article focuses on anything but "mercs and wannabees".

M Carling

Begin forwarded message:

Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 12:33:04 -0400
From: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
To: CYPHERPUNKS@toad.com
Subject: Re: Soldier of Fortune   

Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com
Precedence: bulk


M >
M >This seems counterproductive. PGP should not be portrayed as a  
tool  

M >for those that most Americans consider antisocial.
M >
M >M Carling
M >

A quote from pgpdoc1.doc:

 "If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy.   
Intelligence
     agencies have access to good cryptographic technology.  So do  
the big
     arms and drug traffickers.  So do defense contractors, oil  
companies,
     and other corporate giants.  But ordinary people and grassroots
     political organizations mostly have not had access to affordable
     "military grade" public-key cryptographic technology.  Until  
now."


Now Phil wrote PGP in part so that "grassroots" political  
organizations 

could have strong crypto.  SOF is a "grassroots political  
organization."  


It happens that some people don't like SOF.  It happens that some  
other 

people think that the organizations that Phil was thinking of when he 

wrote PGP are unamerican communist front organizations who should be  
on 

the Attorney General's List (if we still had an Attorney General's 

List)(if we still had an Attorney General).  Tastes differ.

The point of cypherpunks is that everyone (even FBI agents) should  
have 

strong crypto if they want it.

I know that Phil feels a personal sense of embarrassment at being  
adopted 

by all sorts of nut groups (including ourselves) and he has pleaded  
for 

stories of "worthy PGP use."  Standards of worthiness will vary.

DCF   


Who, as it happens, *is* a member of an organization on the Attorney 

General's list.

--- WinQwk 2.0b#1165

C'punks,

On Thu, 14 Apr 1994, M Carling wrote:

> . . .  If anyone is going write something for SOF about PGP, I  
> hope that the article focuses on anything but "mercs and wannabees".
 
Today, I spoke with Bob Brown, editor of SOF.  He just got back from a 
six-week trip out of the country, so he was fairly fried.  Nevertheless, 
he seemed interested in the concept and asked me to send him a short note 
about my proposed article so he and his staff could kick it around.

I wrote up a one-pager which I will mail tomorrow.  I'll follow up next 
week if I haven't heard from him.

My article will focus is Clipper and PGP, but, I repeat, who the hell do
you think reads SOF?  The correct answer is:  a few professional military
freelancers (mercs), cops and enlisted military types (wannabees) plus a
smattering of TLA folks.  Those care the demographics, friend.


 S a n d y