Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files

It seems a little strange that cypherpunks are arguing over whether or
not to disclose information about a (supposedly) cryptographic product
to a certain individual.

  Let's relate this this to other examples of restricting cryptographic
information - can anyone think of any groups or organisations that do
this ? Okay, now we've thought of a couple, lets compare reasons
(left as exercise for the reader) for the restriction of this
information and our opinions on those restrictions.

  Have I made my point ? Should we change the infamous slogan to:
"Cyperpunks is watching you". Someone asked a techical question about
cryptography, other list members answered it.

  Can we now get on with more relevant matter ?

-Jon

--
  Jonathon Fletcher, 
  j.fletcher@stirling.ac.uk

On Sat, 24 Dec 1994, Jonathon Fletcher wrote:
> 
>   It seems a little strange that cypherpunks are arguing over whether or
> not to disclose information about a (supposedly) cryptographic product
> to a certain individual.

The criticism was that the proposed use of the knowledge was wrong
-- not that the knowledge was wrong.

Then there was a larger debate -- is morality a threat to liberty,
or is coercion the only serious threat to liberty.

Now if you are eighteen or so, or if you have retarded emotional
development, the fact that it is real hard to get laid may seem
positive and powerful proof that morality is indeed a grave threat
to liberty.

But of course the fact that it is real hard to get laid is a result
of sociobiology, not of cultural values and morality.


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we        James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.            jamesd@netcom.com

James A. Donald writes:
> The criticism was that the proposed use of the knowledge was wrong
> -- not that the knowledge was wrong.
> Then there was a larger debate -- is morality a threat to liberty,
> or is coercion the only serious threat to liberty.

or that liberty is it's own enemy. One individual's concept of liberty
may infringe on anothers to the point where one individual feels
restricted by the other. The discussion could go on for hours.

My point was not that breaking into your girlfriend's files because you
haven't got the guts to ask her something directly is somehow
acceptable, personally I think it isn't acceptable. My point was that
the list adopted the position of censor in deciding whether or not to
'release' information to the enquirer. That is what I disagree with.
The 'I should be able to read her files in case she's cheating on me'
argument is only a matter of steps away from the 'I should be able to
tap her phone in case she's cheating on me'.

> Now if you are eighteen or so, or if you have retarded emotional
> development,

I can't remember the former, and I can't associate with the latter, so I
won't comment ;-)

This is terribly off-topic. Responses by email - no more waste of list
bandwidth please.

-Jon

--
  Jonathon Fletcher, 
  j.fletcher@stirling.ac.uk

On Sat, 24 Dec 1994, James A. Donald wrote:

> Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 00:11:50 -0800 (PST)
> From: James A. Donald <jamesd@netcom.com>
> To: Jonathon Fletcher <jonathon.fletcher@psych.stir.ac.uk>
> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files
> 
> On Sat, 24 Dec 1994, Jonathon Fletcher wrote:
> > 
> >   It seems a little strange that cypherpunks are arguing over whether or
> > not to disclose information about a (supposedly) cryptographic product
> > to a certain individual.
> 
> The criticism was that the proposed use of the knowledge was wrong
> -- not that the knowledge was wrong.

You can only go two ways with this, either of which is self defeating.

1>  All potentially damaging information, by virtue of it's potential 
"wrongful use" shall be banned.

2>  All information clearly going to be used for the "wrong purposes" 
shall be restricted.


There is simply no other way to restrict information as you propose.

The result in 1>, I think is quite clear.

The result in 2>, requires some ONE, some GROUP to decide what is and is 
not A> "clearly going to be used for," B> "the wrong purposes."
Of course, now I want to know, what "objective" (read subjective to 
conventional wisdom) tests are going to be made to determine these 
criteria, who is going to make them, and who will enforce them?

You end up with either a cut throat thought police regime, or slightly 
less offensive paternalistic censorship.  You choose, what is it you want 
to have?

A> complete amorality in that everything is restricted, (which is what
restricting anything with potential harm essentially means), B> select
morality, imposed by criteria lacking any objective element, as such
criteria must always be subjective, or C> complete amorality in that
everything is allowed.

> 
> Then there was a larger debate -- is morality a threat to liberty,
> or is coercion the only serious threat to liberty.
> 

This completely evades the point.  Your question refuses to acknowledge 
potential differences in the application and structure of morality.

> Now if you are eighteen or so, or if you have retarded emotional
> development, the fact that it is real hard to get laid may seem
> positive and powerful proof that morality is indeed a grave threat
> to liberty.
>

Evades the point, applies a silly analogy to Mr. Norton cracker, and then 
couples it with a crack about his potential age and mental facilities, a 
crack hardly as inappropiate as mine last night.

> But of course the fact that it is real hard to get laid is a result
> of sociobiology, not of cultural values and morality.

Unless your Christian and unmarried.

>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our
> property, because of the kind of animals that we        James A. Donald
> are.  True law derives from this right, not from
> the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.            jamesd@netcom.com
> 

-uni- (Dark)

073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa    -    wichtig!

On Sat, 24 Dec 1994, Black Unicorn wrote:

> You can only go two ways with this, either of which is self defeating.
> 
> 1>  All potentially damaging information, by virtue of it's potential 
> "wrongful use" shall be banned.
> 
> 2>  All information clearly going to be used for the "wrong purposes" 
> shall be restricted.
> 
> 
> There is simply no other way to restrict information as you propose.
>
How about simply giving the information if you feel like it, and 
witholding it if you don't.  And don't bother wether other people give it 
to him.  A simple individual choice wthout attempting to set guidelines 
for morality or any of that worthless shit.

 



i want to know everything          http://www.mcs.com/~nesta/home.html
i want to be everywhere                     Nesta's Home Page        
i want to fuck everyone in the world               &
i want to do something that matters         /-/ a s t e zine

On Sat, 24 Dec 1994, Nesta Stubbs wrote:

> Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 08:43:07 +0000
> From: Nesta Stubbs <nesta@nesta.pr.mcs.net>
> To: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>
> Subject: Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files
> 
> On Sat, 24 Dec 1994, Black Unicorn wrote:
> 
> > You can only go two ways with this, either of which is self defeating.
> > 
> > 1>  All potentially damaging information, by virtue of it's potential 
> > "wrongful use" shall be banned.
> > 
> > 2>  All information clearly going to be used for the "wrong purposes" 
> > shall be restricted.
> > 
> > 
> > There is simply no other way to restrict information as you propose.
> >

> How about simply giving the information if you feel like it, and 
> witholding it if you don't.  And don't bother wether other people give it 
> to him.  A simple individual choice wthout attempting to set guidelines 
> for morality or any of that worthless shit.
> 


You realize of couse this simply applies the individuals morality to the 
problem.  It does not remove a subjective imposition.

Of course, I'm not going to argue that there is a duty to disclose 
requested information, just understand exactly what is taking place here.

> 
> i want to know everything          http://www.mcs.com/~nesta/home.html
> i want to be everywhere                     Nesta's Home Page        
> i want to fuck everyone in the world               &
> i want to do something that matters         /-/ a s t e zine
> 

073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa    -    wichtig!

On Wed, 28 Dec 1994, Black Unicorn wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Dec 1994, Nesta Stubbs wrote:
> 
> > How about simply giving the information if you feel like it, and 
> > witholding it if you don't.  And don't bother wether other people give it 
> > to him.  A simple individual choice wthout attempting to set guidelines 
> > for morality or any of that worthless shit.
> > 
> 
> 
> You realize of couse this simply applies the individuals morality to the 
> problem.  It does not remove a subjective imposition.
>
What the hell else is human interaction and transferring of infromation 
but the non-subjective imposition of a morality(however loose that 
morality may be).   It applies the individuals morality to their 
interactions with the other person, which is all natural and IMO 
impossible to stop without encroaching on personal freedom. 
 
> Of course, I'm not going to argue that there is a duty to disclose 
> requested information, just understand exactly what is taking place here.
> 
the same thing that takes place in any form of communication.


i want to know everything          http://www.mcs.com/~nesta/home.html
i want to be everywhere                     Nesta's Home Page        
i want to fuck everyone in the world               &
i want to do something that matters         /-/ a s t e zine

Is Lance back "creating" pretty flamewars?
He must be amused by the fact that it's really easy.

--
Pelle Johansson, Norra Krokslttsgatan 15B        |    plutt@mtek.chalmers.se
41264 Gteborg, Sweden.                           |       Voice +46-31-358598
anarchrist@igormud, ny.mtek.chalmers.se 1701      |      Beeper   0740-116326
"Destruction is not bad. You have to destruct to build."  - B. Bargeld.