>From the group charter: "Politics should be avoided at all costs."
So discussion about the discussion of politics is ok but discussion of politics is not? 8-/ > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Kevin Spett > Sent: Thursday, 27 February 2003 5:29 p.m. > To: Sung J. Choe; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Cryptome Hacked! > > > RE: [Full-Disclosure] Cryptome Hacked!>> a) What do you mean > by "leftist"? > > By scrutinizing some of the occasional statements made by > persons posting > > at cryptome, one can assume that the politics of the site > operators leans > > towards the left. Read the message traffic generated by > "The practical > > reason the US is starting a war." and you will understand. > > Okay, while you were busy scrutinizing occasional statements, > the rest of us > look at consistent, broad and prevaling themes. John Young's > views are > unique enough that they do not fall into either of the two > categories that > people love to imagine the whole spectrum of political > opinion is divided > into. Reasonable people don't care to reduce any given > political stance as > being some point on a line with "Left" on one end and "Right" > on the other. > While Bill Clinton (who I heard was a Democrat, which in > turn, I hear are on > "the Left") was in office, the ideas and information > expressed on Cryptome > were constantly in opposition to his policies, actions and > propositions. > The fact that the Clipper Chip had the support of "the Left" > didn't seem to > deter Cryptome from criticizing it. > > "The practical reason the US is starting a war" is an overt > editorial (it's > an email message) that discusses war and its possible > consequences. It > doesn't discuss anything that could be correctly classified > as "Leftist". > Or did I miss a line in there about how stronger government > regulation of > the means of production would produce a society in which > wealth were more > justly distributed? It's written by someone whose opinions > (no matter how > ridiculous they are) might be of interest to people who > follow cryptography. > Bonus information: it is neither written by, nor expressly > endorsed by John > Young. It's just an opinion that has been posted. If you > care to, you can > write a disagreeing opinion and it'll be put up on the > thread, just like > other people have. > > >> b) What do you mean by "anti-American" (sic)? > > > I would personally define anti-American as being in a state of mind > > where every action taken by the US government is > represented as being > > against American interests. Therefore, my definitions of > anti-American > > and anti-government are essentially identical. > > Let's look at the language you use here: "every action taken by the US > government" and "against American interests". As for the > first, it's a > silly hyperbole that isn't even true when you limit its scope > to that which > is reasonable: cryptography, intellectual property, privacy > and government > intelligence. When the US government relaxed the export > controls on PGP or > when the Communications Decency Act was defeated did John > Young rail on and > on about how they were horrible events and how the government > was a terrible > institution for allowing them to occur? Hmmm, I must have not checked > Cryptome that day. As for the latter... if John Young dissaproved of > actions that he felt were "against American interests", > wouldn't that make > him pro-American? Your arguments seems at odds with one another. > > Also, many people do not define the word "American" as the > ideas and actions > supported by those in power in American government. > Similarly, definitions > of "anti-government" vary. I'm fairly certain that John Young is not > inherently against government. He would probably like a > government that > made it a priority to protect the civil liberties of its citizens. > > > Just because somebody can formulate an argument based on one, two, > > or three documents does not mean that they grasp the full meaning > > of the subject in question. > > Don't you know it!!! > > > Yet, that's how most of the "opinions" and "arguments" are > presented; > > with one or two sources. And besides, what is "real information"? > > Ever hear of "public diplomacy"? > > Every article on Cryptome should be considered individually. > Typically, > they are more informative and give more information about > their sources than > CNN.com or the ten o'clock news. I'm not really interested > in debating > epistemology here. Do you believe that no information is > real and that > we're really living in the world of the Matrix where the evil > AIs of the > future are battling humans for control of the earth? > > >> I've never seen any kind of anarchist advocacy on > >> cryptome. Dissent does not make you "anti-government". > > >Responsible dissent is indeed a duty of US citizens. How you define > > responsible is up to you. > > >> d) For the most part, Cryptome distributes documents... like, > >> in plaintext format. > > > True, but they also present snippits of those docs along with a > > headline. The sections that they choose to snip fascinates me in > > terms of the content which they feel is important. > > Again, it's silly to seek more information in a few > "snippets" than in a > large quantity of actual content. I'm sure that you and your > buddy Ann > Coulter like to sit around for days and talk about "spin" and > "bias" while > other people choose to debate things of actual meaning. Cryptome is a > blatantly baised site; It doesn't take a detective to realize > that. That > doesn't neccessarily damage its integrity. > > >> e) How is John Young an "extremist"? > > Would you describe him as being conservative, or moderate > in his approach? > > If not, he is an extremist in my eyes. > > Again, you choose to oversimplify things... are conservative, > moderate and > extreme the only things that are out there? When I think of > extremists, I > think of people like the Black Panthers, Adolf Hitler, Hamas > and Thomas > Jefferson. John Young runs a website. He simply isn't in > the running for > Extremism. > > >> Are you trying to imply that John Young is trojaning > >> the software that his site (infrequently) distributes? > > > Not at all. I believe that Mr. Young wishes to provide his > > community access to good crypto software. I also believe > > that he is committed to his cause. However, I do think that > > those who work for/with No Such Agency would like that. > > You think that the NSA is modifying widely distributed crypto > software? > Okay, that's possible. How about some proof? You can > speculate endlessly > on the behaviour of an organization that no one has a lot of > information > about. > > > Cryptome (note Crypt) does indeed distribute and advocate the > > use of PGP and other encryption and/or privacy enhancing software. > > Given the more-paranoid-than-normal state of most of the cryptome > > visitors (myself included), I would think that quite a high > percentage > > of them download and use the software for their own reasons. > > You posted a message saying that cryptome had been hacked and > that you were > concerned about software that it mirrors might be tampered > with not only on > Cryptome but on other sites. The software that cryptome has > is also located > in many, many other places and thus it would be easy to spot > differences > between them. If you want to start asking "how do I trust the hashing > tool", "how do I trust the crypto algorithm" or "how do I > trust the compiler > that I'm using to build the code that I wrote to implement > the algorithm", > you've wandered outside the scope of what most people on this > list care to > answer. > > > In conclusion, for you to attempt to describe cryptome as if it was > > C-SPAN, or the Library of Congress is incredible. If you > believe that > > the operators of cryptome have good intentions towards the > US government, > > than you are also naive. > > Cryptome is a site that strongly promotes a very specific > agenda which is > often at odds with established public policy and popular > opinion. It also > publishes opinions of dissent that it may not fully support > but feel deserve > discussion and exposure. Neither John Young nor Cryptome are > many of the > things that you have described them as. The purpose of my > message was to > point out what I believe were errors in how you portrayed them. > > > Kevin. > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html > _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html