> At 03:52 PM 2/12/00 -0500, Matthew Gream wrote:
>
> I make the assertion that 1 years ago, locks and ciphers were not needed
> because at that time, society was not sufficiently constructed to need them.
Um, actualy codes were used and probably much farther back than 10,000
years.
Trailc
Manifesto?
The continuing struggle for individual liberties and freedoms is ever the
struggle for the power of communication. The primal man and the wall, the
sculptor and the veneration, the peacemaker and the prophecy, or the tyrant and
the world.
The individual seeths against society, a s
At 06:58 AM 2/11/00 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>If ever there was the ideal society,
>then such little call would there be for these devices of confusion.
Wrong. Even in Galt's Gulch, you still want privacy,
against accidental disclosure, for instance. And entities
are free to intercept
>>the coming age, cryptography is the quintessential tool to negotiate the
>>boundary between what is mine, and what is everyone elses, to protect the
>>world
>>from me, and to protect me from the world. If ever there was the ideal
>>society,
>>then such little call would there be for these devic
>At 4:30 PM -0800 2/11/00, Matthew Gream wrote:
>
>>If you were to read the sentence that follows the one you quoted, you would
>>find that I say "however, until such time" to acknowledge two things.
>>Firstly, that an ideal society takes time to reach (if at all reachable),
>>and secondly, that
>At Fri, 11 Feb 2000 11:49:02 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>. If ever there was the ideal society,
>>then such little call would there be for these devices of confusion.
>
>The only ideal society I can think of where " little call would there be
>for these devices" would
>be one brought int
At 01:11 PM 2/12/00 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Given that, it seems to me a society in which cryptography and locks are
>not needed because privacy is respected with such absolutivity as soon
>above is also closer to my ideal.
But private data is accidentally revealed, without malice[1].
At 03:52 PM 2/12/00 -0500, Matthew Gream wrote:
>I make the assertion that 1 years ago, locks and ciphers were not needed
>because at that time, society was not sufficiently constructed to need them.
Because you would know the thief and see him using your
stuff, 10K years ago.
Only when you
>[1] (If everyone used a well-known key to (insecurely) scramble the
>plaintext against casual viewing, most tools would automatically decrypt
>their content without their operators' explicit instruction. If all email
>and news was rot-13, the tools would automatically unrot it. If every car
>
At 10:12 AM 2/13/00 -0500, David Honig wrote:
>At 01:11 PM 2/12/00 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Given that, it seems to me a society in which cryptography and locks are
>>not needed because privacy is respected with such absolutivity as soon
>>above is also closer to my ideal.
>
>But privat
Reese wrote:
> I doubt that a true cypherpunk has ever mistaken anothers car,
> for his own.
> Forget the precise lat and lon coordinates maybe, but not mistake someone
> elses property. The balance of your text is based on this false premise,
> and is both snipped and unaddressed.
I've mistak
At 12:12 AM 2/14/00 -0500, Lucky Green wrote:
>Reese wrote:
>> I doubt that a true cypherpunk has ever mistaken anothers car,
>> for his own.
>> Forget the precise lat and lon coordinates maybe, but not mistake someone
>> elses property. The balance of your text is based on this false premise,
At 12:51 AM -0800 2/14/00, Reese wrote:
>At 12:12 AM 2/14/00 -0500, Lucky Green wrote:
>>Reese wrote:
>>> I doubt that a true cypherpunk has ever mistaken anothers car,
>>> for his own.
>>> Forget the precise lat and lon coordinates maybe, but not mistake someone
>>> elses property. The balance
>I have as well. Never to the point of being inside the car, but to the
>point of trying my key in the lock.
Yeah, given that one car off the assembly like looks pretty
much like another, and that a True CypherPunk(tm) wouldn't do
anything to his car to distinguish it from the rest of
At 07:03 PM 2/20/00 -0500, Petro wrote:
>
>>I have as well. Never to the point of being inside the car, but to the
>>point of trying my key in the lock.
>
> Yeah, given that one car off the assembly like looks pretty
>much like another, and that a True CypherPunk(tm) wouldn't do
>anything
At 4:03 PM -0800 2/20/00, Petro wrote:
>>I have as well. Never to the point of being inside the car, but to the
>>point of trying my key in the lock.
>
> Yeah, given that one car off the assembly like looks pretty
>much like another, and that a True CypherPunk(tm) wouldn't do
>anything to h
At 4:30 PM -0800 2/11/00, Matthew Gream wrote:
>If you were to read the sentence that follows the one you quoted, you would
>find that I say "however, until such time" to acknowledge two things.
>Firstly, that an ideal society takes time to reach (if at all reachable),
>and secondly, that when a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> This whole "until we reach perfection" line of reasoning is pernicious.
>
> As David Honig noted in his response, even in "ideal" societies
> people want
> privacy.
>
> In particular, an ideal society will still involve competition, both
> personal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tim,
> I understood your point. And I still think your point is pernicious.
I am not sure that you understand my point.
> The very notion of "perfection means rights won't be needed" is what is
> pernicious. Seen frequently in the gun debate. ("I
At 11:39 AM -0800 2/12/00, Matthew Gream wrote:
>Fundamentally:
>- - the digital world is entirely digital, and in the digital world, some
>form of cryptography is the basis for all manner of rights (transport
>protocols are basic "rights" between communication systems, QoS parameters
>can be se
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Where have you been for the past decade? It's been done. Your observations
> are not new, and are actually fairly naive in many ways. You need to read
> some Nozick, for example. And Friedman, my own writings, those of other
> Cypherpunks, and so
At 12:41 PM -0800 2/12/00, Matthew Gream wrote:
>> Your "in a perfect society locks and ciphers would not be needed"
>> philosophy is...uninteresting.
>
>Tim, please do not misquote me. Perhaps from your perspective, it is
>uninteresting.
You need to work on your understanding of English. I did
At Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:55:10 -0500 (EST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> At Fri, 11 Feb 2000 11:49:02 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >. If ever there was the ideal society,
>> >then such little call would there be for these devices of confusion.
At Fri, 11 Feb 2000 11:49:02 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>. If ever there was the ideal society,
>then such little call would there be for these devices of confusion.
The only ideal society I can think of where " little call would there be
for these devices" would
be one brought into bein
On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> At Fri, 11 Feb 2000 11:49:02 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >. If ever there was the ideal society,
> >then such little call would there be for these devices of confusion.
>
> The only ideal society I can think of where " little call would th
At 3:49 AM -0800 2/11/00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Manifesto?
>
>The continuing struggle for individual liberties and freedoms is ever the
>struggle for the power of communication. The primal man and the wall, the
>sculptor and the veneration, the peacemaker and the prophecy, or the
>tyrant and
Here's my .02p
By definition, the more' controlled society would not be a _free society_. It
would be controled by the tyranny of conformism, the greatest tyranny of all,
for from it there is _no_ escape. Freedom includes the freedom to be bad.
Without the possibility of being bad there could
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,
On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Consider the situation were people mature
> >to the point where laws against, say, murder are irrelevant because
> >murder NEVER happens.
>
> Surely societies that had no martial art, no legislative process, no
> bad stuff have come and gone in th
On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here's my .02p
> By definition, the more' controlled society would not be a _free society_.
Of course.
> It would be controled by the tyranny of conformism, the greatest
> tyranny of all, for from it there is _no_ escape.
Be weird.
> The pass
30 matches
Mail list logo
