> Eric Murray said: > > > OTOH, there certainly has been another attempt by government > > to villify crypto users with the recent spate of articles on Osama > > bin Oceania and other terrorists supposed use of crypto and stego. > > The Red scare of the 50s was also to a large extent promoted and fanned > > into flame by elements of the government. While there isn't a "moral > > boundary crisis" amongst the general public about crypto, there is an > > attempt at "vilification" and "patterned labelling" of crypto users by > > the government. And many cypherpunks have predicted the > > government causing > > events similar to "crystallization of the crisis through a dramatic act" > > and "appropriation of the appropriate social apparatus and suppression > > of critique" of crypto users by the government. > > (However, few of those believe that "and finally restoration of a normal > > situation" would then occur.) > > I appreciate the small confirmation that I am not living on > another planet, Mr. Murray. > > > The paper doesn't mention the political aspects of either of its > > examples (another of it's flaws). If you can think of "mass hate" > > as a politically-motivated inflaming of the masses fears, then > > the steps that it describes are remarkably similar to the expected > > political response to crypto-anarchy. > > So far, they haven't had much to hang their hat on, at least no > specific instance that has become a public focal-point. > Informational anarchy and small-time monkeywrenching does > certainly seem to be mainstreaming, but "terrorist tool" is a > high-caliber metaphor, especially if used in conjunction with a > domestic act of terrorism. Oh, blah, I'm sure I'm not adding to > the intellectual group capital...I'll follow Prof. May's advice > and sift the archives. > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Aimee E. Farr > Law Office Of Aimee E. Farr > 5400 Bosque, Suite 675 > Waco, Texas 76710-4418 > ph: 254.751.0030 | fx: 751.0963 > > > >
