At 03:31 AM 06/29/2002 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Thanks Bill, for passing on your message, along with the news that I've been >dissed and discussed by R.A. Hettinga. Naturally, he never informed me, nor >copied me his missives, nor invited me to answer. This appears to be quite >typical.
Sure. I'd assumed you'd seen his mail; I'm separately forwarding the message that I'd excerpted, though I don't seem to have most of the other messages in the thread; archives are at http://inet-one.com/cypherpunks/ (it's mostly full of spam, because somebody once decided to make a point about list filtering by subscribing us to all the spam he could find but there's real content as well; I read the spam-filtered version of the list, but I'm not aware of an archive of that version.) You do get occasionally discussed on the list, or at least referred to, >Your attempt, below, is a good effort. Inaccurate in some details, but also >quite interesting. I wish I had time for a full reaction. Perhaps I will >try later, after returning from giving a keynote at the Libertarian National >Convention. Oh, that'll be interesting - I'll see you there. One of the cypherpunks arguments is that you'll get a lot more whistleblowers if they can do so anonymously. >... >The only defense of freedom that works is the one americans have used for >200 years. An AGGRESSIVE approach, barging into the citadels of power, >ripping the blinds, opening the windows, protecting the whistleblowers, >siccing elites against each other, unleashing a myriad news-hounds and >generally stripping the big boys naked! >... >My freedom is protected by MY ability to supervise govt... to know what they >are up to and to hold them accountable if they abuse their power. Not only >is that epistemologically possible, it is exactly how we got the freedom we >now have!
