On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 08:40:01PM -0400, Karl wrote: > On 10/15/20, Zenaan Harkness <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 09:04:50AM +1000, [email protected] wrote: > >> On 2020-10-16 05:43, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote: > >> > On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 13:40:35 -0400 > >> > Robert Hettinga <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Part 2. Two more to go... > >> >> > >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=n4qonsvSgAg&app=desktop > >> >> > >> > > >> > So speaking of NSA shills, that's exactly the sort of thing I would > >> > expect from one. The promotin of the idea that 'crypto' is a weapon > >> > against tyranny when in practice it serves the tyrants a lot more than > >> > it serves their victims. > >> > > >> > Cryptography is what allows big brother to control all of their big > >> > brother backdoored hardware, for instance. > >> > >> Crypto is a munition. You want to deny us weapons, but do not want the > >> government denied weapons. > > > > I have to disagree, and the noise of Juan's anger is perhaps what makes it > > sometimes difficult to hear him, but it seems his position is that "all tech > > that gets created, gets used -more- by the fascist MIC regime dominating us > > all" and the obvious conclusion from this apparently correct observation is > > "so why the hell would you create more, or promote, any such tech?" > > > > This argument (if I've paraphrased Juan correctly) is quite compelling - > > it's not obviously wrong. > > > > So we are presented with a dilemma - you could say Juan takes a strong > > position on one side of that dilemma, but that's not the problem here (in > > fact, Juan's strong position helps us to see more clearly, the very dilemma > > we are faced with). > > > > The problem is not Juan's position on this dilemma, the problem is in fact > > the dilemma itself. > > The video makes it pretty clear that cypherpunks were holding the role > of addressing that dilemma, right inside technology.
s/role/intention/ Cypherpunks are supposed to hold the -intention- to benefit the lower downs/ the people/ human rights, rather than govcorp. Juan's (largely correct) point is that the pudding has proved something close to the opposite of that intention - total take surveillance, zero privacy, owelling fascism racing down the pipeline to keep us all in line (face/retina scanning, social credit, no travel/train tickets except you have the chip of the beast and a "sufficiently positive" social credit score, for just a few examples...)
