SS Obergruppenfuhrer Zimmermann (NOT!)

Anonymous User <nobody@c2.org> writes:

 > "Private communications between neo-Nazis on the network are
 > effected under a program called "Pretty Good Privacy",
 > devised by an American neo-Nazi sympathiser."

 > Robin Gedye (in Bonn) p.23 of "The Sunday Telegraph"
 > January 21, 1996

Before anyone takes this nonsense too seriously, one should
realize that the exhibition of such microscopic views of
technology by journalists and politicians is fairly common.

Who can forget Caspar Weinburger's stirring speech in front of an
illegally exported low-end VAX, explaining that the machine was a
sophisticated electronic device for the tracking of missiles and
troop movements, now in the hands of America's enemies.

Then there was the newspaper article which explained in perfect
seriousness that "GIF" was a secret computer code used by child
molesters to encode images of their victims.

Characterizing PGP as a neo-Nazi tool for private communications
written by a sympathizer, while absurd in a larger sense, is
hardly sillier than the prior examples.  And all such scenarios
contain a microscopic grain of truth as seen by someone somewhere
with a severe case of tunnel vision.

The reporter no doubt reports correctly that some neo-Nazis use
PGP to communicate privately.  Doubtless PKZ supports the right
of all people, including those with diverse political views, to
conduct legal private conversations which cannot be overheard by
their governments, as do most of the people on this list.  I
suppose in some obtuse sense this is sympathy.

It is highly unlikely that anyone who uses Cypherpunk technology
is as ignorant as this reporter.  So let's just mail the poor guy
a clue and move on.  Things like this happen often, and it's not
really worth a prolongued debate.

--
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $

The reporter's slander against Zimmerman was not accidental, or the 
result of ignorance.  Calling someone a Naxi sympathizer is not something 
that one should do without a smoking gun.

This act of aggression against cypherpunks, attempts to box us into a 
corner. Our enemies want to keep us on the defensive.  In that context, 
any and all energy we spend on "educating" and "correcting" is 
self-defeating. The hoplophobe lobby has shown, that enemies of freedom 
will not permit themselves to be "corrected". They will merely escalate 
the rate and size of their lies. Before slanders about "cop-killer 
bullets" could be corrected, they had moved onto "assault weapons".

We need to find a way to take back the initiative. We need to find a way 
to put the fear of God into liers. Violence won't work, since they are 
capable of human-wave attacks. 

I honestly don't know what reporters and editors fear the most. But, even a 
snake can be trained, if you can pinpoint the proper negative feedback.

Alan Horowitz
alanh@norfolk.infi.net

gee, Alan, maybe I was a bit hasty calling you a liberal!  but at
    least your friends got a laugh out of it. they say as you get older,
    you are supposed to mellow...  Tim --any comment, are you more or less
    irrascable? I know my answer!

	looks like the Telegraph is retracting the stories in a big
    way, including the possibility PRZ may be a hero for freedom!

	This is a contest:

1.	    "The Constitution is not a law, but it empowers the people
	to make laws....  The Constitution tells us what shall not be a 
	lawful tender.... The legislature has ceded up to us the 
	privilege of enacting laws as are not in consistent with the 
	Constitution of the United States.... The different states, and 
	even Congress itself, have passed many laws diametrically 
	contrary to the Constitution of the United States.
	    "...Shall we be such fools as to be governed by its laws, 
	which are unconstitutional?  No!  ...The Constitution 
	acknowledges that the people have all the power not reserved to 
	itself. I am a lawyer, a big lawyer and comprehend heaven, earth, 
	and hell, to bring forth knowledge that shall cover up all 
	lawyers, doctors and other big bodies. This is the doctrine of 
	the Constitution, so help me God. The Constitution is not law to 
	us, but it makes provisions for us whereby we can make laws. Where
	it  provides that no one shall be hindered from worshipping God 
	according to his own conscience, is a law. No legislature can 
	enact a law to prohibit it. The Constitution provides to regulate
	bodies of men and not individuals."

2.	    "If we have to give up our chartered rights, privileges, and 
	freedom, which our fathers fought, bled, and died for, and which
	the constittion of the United States and of this state guarantee
	unto us, we will do so only at the point of the sword and the
	bayonet."
	
 !!!    the test: who said this, and when, and where is it referenced?

        I haven't figured out a prize, but maybe a character mode face
    --how about Bubba?  or even better yet, King Hillary, standing up to
    give the oath before Congress tomorrow --do you think she will finish
    the oath as written: "So help me God"  -?  

	too bad I do not even own a television (snake oil makes me break
    out in hives); Hillary should be great as my money says she will still
    lie --until she learns that the only way of not trapping yourself 
    in contradictions eventually means your tell the truth
	
On Tue, 23 Jan 1996, Alan Horowitz wrote:

> The reporter's slander against Zimmerman was not accidental, or the 
> result of ignorance.  Calling someone a Naxi sympathizer is not something 
> that one should do without a smoking gun.
> 
	I agree, except the press forgets rights in favour of scandal 
    which means money, and money begets money (advertisers).

> This act of aggression against cypherpunks, attempts to box us into a 
> corner. Our enemies want to keep us on the defensive.  In that context, 
> any and all energy we spend on "educating" and "correcting" is 
> self-defeating. The hoplophobe lobby has shown, that enemies of freedom 
> will not permit themselves to be "corrected". They will merely escalate 
> the rate and size of their lies. Before slanders about "cop-killer 
> bullets" could be corrected, they had moved onto "assault weapons".
>
> We need to find a way to take back the initiative. We need to find a way 
> to put the fear of God into liers. Violence won't work, since they are 
> capable of human-wave attacks. 
> 
> I honestly don't know what reporters and editors fear the most. But, even a 
> snake can be trained, if you can pinpoint the proper negative feedback.
>
	advertising dollars going down the drain. litigation, even if 
    frivolous against corporate advertisers for supporting falsehoods
    and innuendos which will destroy the american way of life. Stockholder
    lawsuits are often the most effective.  I do not like the "means" of
    U.S. Courts, but they are always using the courts against us, so 
    turnabout is fair play.
	
		attila
 
> Alan Horowitz
> alanh@norfolk.infi.net
> 

__________________________________________________________________________
    go not unto usenet for advice, for the inhabitants thereof will say:
      yes, and no, and maybe, and I don't know, and fuck-off.
_________________________________________________________________ attila__

    To be a ruler of men, you need at least 12 inches....
    There is no safety this side of the grave.  Never was; never will be.

Alan Horowitz writes:
> The reporter's slander against Zimmerman was not accidental, or the 
> result of ignorance.
[...]
> This act of aggression against cypherpunks, attempts to box us into a 
> corner.

Okay. I think I understand. You're a fruitcake. Easy enough.

Perry

On Tue, 23 Jan 1996, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> Alan Horowitz writes:
>>[...] 
> Okay. I think I understand. You're a fruitcake. Easy enough.
> 

The official pastry of the 1996 Cypherpunks.

One might note that Zimmerman isn't, er, a common name for yer typical 
Neo-Nazi... This sort of accusation is sufficient grounds for libel in 
the UK (such accusations have been found to be defamatory, and would 
almost certainly be settled within a few days. 

Of course Phil (Hallam Baker) has more experience with this sort of
thing... 

Simon

> We need to find a way to take back the initiative. We need to find a way 
> to put the fear of God into liers.

I'm outta step here, I know, but it seems to me that if we're going to go
around advocating anonymity and technology that makes censorship
impossible we'd better grow thicker skins. 

Phil changed the world.  Maybe not as much as people like Roosevelt or
Reagan, but a lot more than most people do.  He wrote a software package
that's in wide use, and which has lots of admirers.  He used technology to
effect positive political changes around the world -- noteworthy both for
the effect and the ingenuity of the strategy.  And he stood up under a
personal attack from the government.  They came at him, but he took it and
won. 

Everyone who does something extraordinary gets hit with pot shots.  It's 
part of the package.

Is it a terrible thing that someone called him a name in print?  Yes.  If 
he's got a case, he should sue.  But something tells me he's tough enough 
to take it either way.

> Violence won't work, since they are capable of human-wave attacks.

And because it's wrong?

On Tue, 23 Jan 1996, Alex Strasheim wrote:

> > We need to find a way to take back the initiative. We need to find a way 
> > to put the fear of God into liers.
> 
> I'm outta step here, I know, but it seems to me that if we're going to go
> around advocating anonymity and technology that makes censorship
> impossible we'd better grow thicker skins. 

(Hear)^2

> Is it a terrible thing that someone called him a name in print?  Yes.  If 
> he's got a case, he should sue.  But something tells me he's tough enough 
> to take it either way.

Geez, guys, they didn't even do that.

Some rag said that Nazis used PGP.

Some anonymous guy forwarded, without substantive comment, a report of the
above. 

The report is true, to a point. Nazis use PGP. So do child pornographers,
anti-Nazis, rapists, women who have been raped and don't care for the
world to know, major US and international corporations, and the US
Military (most of the computer security bulletins I see from .mil are
PGP-signed). 

I thought the report was totally bogus, and I took Mr. Anonymous's posting
to be a joke -- see, first those silly people who don't understand
anything are attacking the Internet because it's got these dirty pictures
on it, now they say there's Nazis using encryption on it. 

Was there nobody else who was able to look at that and laugh?

Sheesh.

> > Violence won't work, since they are capable of human-wave attacks.
> 
> And because it's wrong?

"Wrong" is irrelevant, because it's unenforceable. Right, guys? Don't be 
such a girlie, Alex.

What we need is amoral deterrence at the most atomistic level, right? 
Heck, it's the only thing that we know works.

-rich
 Fucking Statist