not a flame please read and think about this

why is it that half the
people who post here work for the government or big companies that are doing
governments bidding (rand.org (which is part of the the nsa!) att.com (makers of the clipper chip)
mit (which onwns rsa)
netscape etc etc)

what makes me wonder isnt so much that theyre here but that they post socalled
reasonable stuff that supports the  the government line.
like when these people report on
what the nsa guy says at the crypto convention as if were supposed to take it
seriously and these people who say clipper is good enough no back doors.
and then everyone takes this crap seriously.

obviously the government thinks there are some things we shouldnt think
about ourselves. and then someone comes along and says theyve thought about
it already and we should just go mind our own biz. arent we supposed to be
cypherPUNKS? than why do we need these people to think for us?

honest replies only please. i dont mean to flame but this really bothers me. we should maybe think about a closed list.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
If you reply to this message, your message WILL be *automatically* anonymized
and you are allocated an anon id. Read the help file to prevent this.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.

I feel it's my civic duty to respond to these things, but there's nothing
new here. NOISE.

an116512@anon.penet.fi writes:
> why is it that half the
> people who post here work for the government or big companies that are doing
> governments bidding

*sigh* This line gets trotted out every few months here, like clockwork.
You should look for similar threads in the archives. Allow me to sum them up
for you, meanwhile: who cares ?  Perhaps it's because the government and big
corporations have (surprise) flocks of people working for them. Your 
assertion that fully 50% of the posters to the list overtly work for such 
organizations is patently absurd, anyway.  

[...]
> what makes me wonder isnt so much that theyre here but that they post 
> socalled reasonable stuff that supports the  the government line.
> like when these people report on what the nsa guy says at the crypto
> convention as if were supposed to take it seriously

What alternative do you propose ?  Are we merely to chuckle and say, "Oh,
those guys at the NSA are such kidders. As if they actually had any
influence on public policy decisions in the U.S.  What a hoot !"  ?

> and these people who say clipper is good enough no back doors.
> and then everyone takes this crap seriously.

Eh ?  David Sternlight isn't openly on the list; whom do you have in mind ?

> obviously the government thinks there are some things we shouldnt think
> about ourselves. 

(Agreed)

> and then someone comes along and says theyve thought about
> it already and we should just go mind our own biz. arent we supposed to be
> cypherPUNKS? than why do we need these people to think for us?

Unless you can be more specific about this, I really have no idea to what and
whom it refers.

> honest replies only please. i dont mean to flame but this really bothers me. 

BTW, if not for this line I wouldn't even have bothered replying.

> we should maybe think about a closed list.

Feel free -- no-one is stopping you or anyone else from creating one. You 
could even announce it here. I'll still be here listening to Matt Blaze,
Jim Gillogly, Derek Atkins, Jeff Weinstein, et al. But then again I've
worked at a govt. lab too, so I guess I wouldn't be welcome on your list
either. Darn.

-Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>

> an116512@anon.penet.fi writes:
> like when these people report on
> what the nsa guy says at the crypto convention as if were supposed to take it
...
> honest replies only please. i dont mean to flame but this really bothers me. 
>we should maybe think about a closed list.

Time to mark my calendar -- flamed on the same day by David Sternlight in
alt.security.pgp for espousing cypherpunk ideals and by an anonymous
person on C'punks for being a government stooge.  I must be doing
something right.

16 Halimath -- red letter day.

	Jim Gillogly
	Highday, 16 Halimath S.R. 1995, 14:05

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Thu, 7 Sep 1995 an116512@anon.penet.fi wrote:

> why is it that half the
> people who post here work for the government or big companies that are doing
> governments bidding (rand.org (which is part of the the nsa!) att.com (makers of the clipper chip)
> mit (which onwns rsa)
> netscape etc etc)

I doubt the statistics and I don't see how mere employment with
the above somehow disqualifies one for having a regard for 
privacy.  In many cases, they have a much better grasp of the
threat than the rest of us.

> what makes me wonder isnt so much that theyre here but that they post socalled
> reasonable stuff that supports the  the government line.

This is nonsense.  Please give some examples of the sycophantic
posts you claim supports "the government line."

> like when these people report on
> what the nsa guy says at the crypto convention as if were supposed to take it
> seriously and these people who say clipper is good enough no back doors.
> and then everyone takes this crap seriously.

Who?  When?  To which "everyone" do you refer?

> . . . arent we supposed to be
> cypherPUNKS?

What the hell is that supposed to mean?  The name was given and
accepted in jest.  I'm not aware of any special PUNK 
qualifications.  Please elucidate.

> than why do we need these people to think for us?

The Cypherpunks I know certainly don't; sorry to hear about you.

Are you planning to show up at Saturday's anniversary meeting
again, Larry?


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sandy Sandfort writes:
> On Thu, 7 Sep 1995 an116512@anon.penet.fi wrote:
> 
> > why is it that half the people who post here work for the
> > government or big companies that are doing governments bidding
> > (rand.org (which is part of the the nsa!) att.com (makers of the
> > clipper chip) mit (which onwns rsa) netscape etc etc)
> 
> I doubt the statistics and I don't see how mere employment with
> the above somehow disqualifies one for having a regard for 
> privacy.

anonymous idiot doesn't even have his facts right. VLSI and Mykotronix
(sp?) make the EES chips. Rand doesn't do much NSA research (although
there are other companies that do) and MIT doesn't have any real
rights to RSA given the PKP agreements.

In any case, who gives a damn?

Perry