Tim May wrote:
>>Tim, please do not misquote me. Perhaps from your perspective, it is
>>uninteresting.
>
>You need to work on your understanding of English. I didn't attribute that
>as a direct quote, with either quote marks or "Gream said:" I characterized
>that phrase as your point of view, which nothing in your comments earlier
>or even here, below, disputes.
I understood your intent, and I think that you were wrong in your
characterisation.
Perhaps you misunderstand that I am trying to be pedantic about terminology,
i.e.
issues that are broader than "locks and ciphers".
>>I make the assertion that 10000 years ago, locks and ciphers were not needed
>>because at that time, society was not sufficiently constructed to need them.
>
>Nonsense. Various methods of denying access, hiding information, etc. have
>existed for a lot longer than 10,000 years. Whether they metal locks or
>numerical ciphers is not the point. They had gates and doors which could be
>barred from the inside, they had secret information (initiation rights
>would otherwise be meaningless). You mistake the modern instantiations of
>privacy tools for the whole.
I agree, cf. the Maori culture which used rituals, beliefs, customs, morals and
other constructs to retain social integrity and delineate rights/wrongs, etc.
This would hardly be considered "locks and ciphers", but it would be considered
"rights, ethics and morals": which illustrates the sensitivity of terminology.
Sure now when you use the term "privacy tools", you are generalising beyond
"locks
and ciphers".
>>I make the assertion that 1000 years henceforth, locks and ciphers _may not_
>>be needed, because in such a time, society may be sufficiently advanced
>>beyond these notions.
>
>What a nitwit.
I don't have a problem with being called a nitwit when I'm arguing about the
finer points of terminology. Perhaps you should also call the people that argue
about the finer points of export law nitwits as well ?
Best regards,
Matthew.
