Time for a return of the Cypherpunks, Crypto-Anarchists & Techno-Libertarians?(jroller.com)
jroller.com
Time for a return of the Cypherpunks, Crypto-Anarchists & Techno-Libertarians?
http://www.jroller.com/mindcrime/entry/time_for_the_return_of
20 comments
By contrast, I've noticed the exact opposite phenomenon that the OP describes (mainly, that over the past year or so, neo-cypherpunks have started coming out of the woodwork to prosthelitize things like bitcoin, and terrible in-browser Javascript crypto).
I suppose we all see what we want to see.
I do wish that there existed a forum for some of the discussions that used to actually happen on the cypherpunks list (even though it would frequently derail into arguments about assasination markets, and paranoid conspiracy theories).
I suppose we all see what we want to see.
I do wish that there existed a forum for some of the discussions that used to actually happen on the cypherpunks list (even though it would frequently derail into arguments about assasination markets, and paranoid conspiracy theories).
mainly, that over the past year or so, neo-cypherpunks have started coming out of the woodwork to prosthelitize things like bitcoin,
OK, fair point about bitcoin. But other than that, I really feel like the cypherpunk types have been fairly invisible lately. Maybe it's just that there was a certain period of time, back in the /. heyday, when discussions of cryptography, surveillance, data-havens, etc. were at a peak, and now they've leveled off. But in any case, I would argue that we (still) need an active and efficient cypherpunk community to promote technological freedom.
OK, fair point about bitcoin. But other than that, I really feel like the cypherpunk types have been fairly invisible lately. Maybe it's just that there was a certain period of time, back in the /. heyday, when discussions of cryptography, surveillance, data-havens, etc. were at a peak, and now they've leveled off. But in any case, I would argue that we (still) need an active and efficient cypherpunk community to promote technological freedom.
I think what's changed is that the discussions during the heyday were around the technology, which at the time was the limiting factor. The technology isn't really the issue anymore (with some specific exceptions).
The problem with crypto-currency isn't the "crypto", it's the "currency". I think that same phenomena is the culprit for most "cyperpunk-related" discussions.
10 years ago I'd have said that I was really hoping for the "Star Trek" future, but that if I was forced to bet, I'd bet on a "BladeRunner" future being way more likely.
Now I'm old, and I think if I was forced to bet, "Brazil" is a more likely model (the movie, not the country).
But I don't want to sound like I'm dismissing the value of a healthy "cypherpunk" community. I think you can look at a lot of things that came out of the original community and see value there.
The problem with crypto-currency isn't the "crypto", it's the "currency". I think that same phenomena is the culprit for most "cyperpunk-related" discussions.
10 years ago I'd have said that I was really hoping for the "Star Trek" future, but that if I was forced to bet, I'd bet on a "BladeRunner" future being way more likely.
Now I'm old, and I think if I was forced to bet, "Brazil" is a more likely model (the movie, not the country).
But I don't want to sound like I'm dismissing the value of a healthy "cypherpunk" community. I think you can look at a lot of things that came out of the original community and see value there.
Here's a link to a list, by year, of how the future is portrayed in films. I'm not sure if it's listed in the infographic, but the film 'Code 46' (Tim Robbins) tells an intriguing story of where I see things heading.
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/3199/inforn.jpg
Another image I can't locate showed how we used to see the future, from a 1980's standpoint (think: Jetsons), and how we see it today (think: "The Road", "Book of Eli" or "I am Legend").
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/3199/inforn.jpg
Another image I can't locate showed how we used to see the future, from a 1980's standpoint (think: Jetsons), and how we see it today (think: "The Road", "Book of Eli" or "I am Legend").
how we used to see the future, from a 1980's standpoint (think: Jetsons)
I think you must mean a 1960s standpoint. 1980s gave us Bladerunner and Terminator.
I think you must mean a 1960s standpoint. 1980s gave us Bladerunner and Terminator.
The movie Blade Runner was based on the book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, written by Philip K Dick in 1968.
The movie The Terminator was at probably partially inspired by the short story Second Variety, written by Philip K Dick in 1953.
The movie The Terminator was at probably partially inspired by the short story Second Variety, written by Philip K Dick in 1953.
Now I'm old, and I think if I was forced to bet, "Brazil" is a more likely model (the movie, not the country).
I'm afraid you may be right. But I still hold out some hope that we can do better than that.
I'm afraid you may be right. But I still hold out some hope that we can do better than that.
The problem is the vision these techno-libertarians promote is one of isolation, not connection. The world has shifted. People want to share. They want privacy, but when privacy must be eroded to allow greater connectivity, they trade it willingly.
Crypto solutions lead to technical complexity which in turn raises the barrier to entry and makes it difficult for outsiders to join in. It's some kind of isolationist community. Who uses Diaspora, anyway? Anyone? Doesn't it offer precisely what everyone's allegedly in need of?
Crypto solutions lead to technical complexity which in turn raises the barrier to entry and makes it difficult for outsiders to join in. It's some kind of isolationist community. Who uses Diaspora, anyway? Anyone? Doesn't it offer precisely what everyone's allegedly in need of?
> I do wish that there existed a forum for some of the discussions that used to actually happen on the cypherpunks list
check out the bitcoin forums. Honestly, I think the op has been hiding under a rock for the past couple years. Bitcoin and tor are great examples, but there are plenty of other disruptive projects out there, like loom, open-transactions, ripple. Crypto-anarchists didn't go away, they got to work creating practical applications that can change people's lives, and not just for the geeks.
check out the bitcoin forums. Honestly, I think the op has been hiding under a rock for the past couple years. Bitcoin and tor are great examples, but there are plenty of other disruptive projects out there, like loom, open-transactions, ripple. Crypto-anarchists didn't go away, they got to work creating practical applications that can change people's lives, and not just for the geeks.
> I do wish that there existed a forum for some of the discussions that used to actually happen on the cypherpunks list
You may find some interested people in UK Crypto (but obviously I'm not suggestion you spam their list). (http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/ukcrypto)
> This group is comprised of people with a professional interest in the formulation and content of UK government policy on the provision, use and control of encryption products and services in the UK. It was formed in response to the 1996 announcement of UK policy on the provision of encryption services on telecommunications networks.
> The mailing list is unmoderated, but only subscribed members can post. Please try and restrict postings to UK Encryption law and try not to stray onto general cryptology topics.
You may find some interested people in UK Crypto (but obviously I'm not suggestion you spam their list). (http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/ukcrypto)
> This group is comprised of people with a professional interest in the formulation and content of UK government policy on the provision, use and control of encryption products and services in the UK. It was formed in response to the 1996 announcement of UK policy on the provision of encryption services on telecommunications networks.
> The mailing list is unmoderated, but only subscribed members can post. Please try and restrict postings to UK Encryption law and try not to stray onto general cryptology topics.
Start a mailing list, start recruiting people to post...who knows, maybe you'll set up the new place?
Count me in. My initial focus is going to be on the RTP area, and trying to get a meatspace meetup going, that caters to folks of this mindset. But if a new hub for cypherpunk (and related) thought emerged online, I'd definitely join in.
>terrible in-browser Javascript crypto
I'm not a cryptographer by any means, but my first thought when reading that is can we make non-terrible in-browser javascript crypto?
I'm not a cryptographer by any means, but my first thought when reading that is can we make non-terrible in-browser javascript crypto?
The short answer is "no, we can't" which every time someone proposes a new scheme seems to infuriate people (as though our inability to actually do it is a value judgement on whether or not it's a good idea).
Actually, I think in some limited circumstances, JS crypto could be useful for a kind of "separation of trust." For instance, I am considering a service at the moment which would involve people uploading confidential information. The uploads will be fairly large, so a lot of bandwidth will be required (optimistically assuming it gets traction.) One architecture I am considering is a small dedicated HTTPS server which provides a self-contained webpage-plus-JS program to encrypt the upload and send it for storage on Amazon S3. Then I will pull the results off Amazon and decrypt them on a machine which is not even connected to the network. The advantage to this architecture is that it will scale arbitrarily but require me to secure only relatively modest dedicated resources, despite being used for transmission of confidential information. Because it uses a dedicated HTTPS server serving a self-contained page doing all the crypto, it avoids tptacek's objections to JS crypto in the browser (E.g., the server can provide the random seed in the JS itself, HTTPS prevents MITM attacks, etc.)
(Copied from http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3872007)
(Copied from http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3872007)
So, you're scheme would require the long answer...
;)
Which is that it sounds rather complicated (which makes my security-sense go off, but certainly isn't a fatal indictment) and that I'd really need to either do an active evaluation of the system or get several reassurrances that someone else decent (ideally someone much smarter than me) did and it checked out before I'd be remotely comfortable using it or recommending it.
;)
Which is that it sounds rather complicated (which makes my security-sense go off, but certainly isn't a fatal indictment) and that I'd really need to either do an active evaluation of the system or get several reassurrances that someone else decent (ideally someone much smarter than me) did and it checked out before I'd be remotely comfortable using it or recommending it.
That design is not obviously impossible to make work, but have you thought about timing attacks? There is no obvious way to make JS take key- and data-independent time to encrypt something. (Turning this into a usable attack is nontrivial, obviously.)
What kind of vulnerability would a timing attack expose, in the use case I outlined?
It could conceivably leak the key and/or data being sent. If the key is random, leaking it does not expose unrelated data; and if you're uploading via HTTPS, exposing the key does not even expose the protected data unless the attacker also has access to S3.
Data-dependent timings could conceivably allow a bad guy to deduce something about the data being sent.
Note that this is all highly speculative; I'm not convinced it's truly impossible, but it's one of those attack scenarios where "put a gun to the sysadmin's head" begins to look like a pleasant and trouble-free option...
Data-dependent timings could conceivably allow a bad guy to deduce something about the data being sent.
Note that this is all highly speculative; I'm not convinced it's truly impossible, but it's one of those attack scenarios where "put a gun to the sysadmin's head" begins to look like a pleasant and trouble-free option...
> Then I will pull the results off Amazon and decrypt them on a machine which is not even connected to the network.
What? How does the machine -the machine not connected to the network- get the results off Amazon?
What? How does the machine -the machine not connected to the network- get the results off Amazon?
I guess it's possible the machine (connected to the Internet) pulling from Amazon is also connected to a network with the machine that can decrypt (but can't access the Internet)
I would periodically copy the encrypted files to removeable media, then physically transfer the copy to the offline machine.
The main issue is the trust base. Allow the entire code base of a site to be pinned down to a cert (and that has to be done outside the website context, ie. in-browser), and you're halfway there.
Say, a signed webapp manifest, listing all files that are supposed to be used in that context and their hashes. On first execution, the associated key is stored, maybe compared with third party knowledge about the site (not tampered with) and key (known not-trustworthy).
After that, you know when someone else than the maintainer tampered with the code.
With that you're down to trusting the maintainer. Which makes it as good as any other code distribution scheme.
Say, a signed webapp manifest, listing all files that are supposed to be used in that context and their hashes. On first execution, the associated key is stored, maybe compared with third party knowledge about the site (not tampered with) and key (known not-trustworthy).
After that, you know when someone else than the maintainer tampered with the code.
With that you're down to trusting the maintainer. Which makes it as good as any other code distribution scheme.
One of the top Google results for "javascript cryptography" thoroughly attacks the concept, but I'm not an expert in the area so I can't refute or confirm its claims:
http://www.matasano.com/articles/javascript-cryptography/
http://www.matasano.com/articles/javascript-cryptography/
This is tptacek's company.
It's not a problem with javascript so much as a problem with the issue of knowing what code is actually running in your browser.
What's your gripe on in-browser JS crypto?
Is it worse than nothing, or just bad?
What alternatives would you suggest?
Is it worse than nothing, or just bad?
What alternatives would you suggest?
My gripe is the same as the overwhelming majority of people in my industry: that given unlimited resources, in your wildest dreams you couldn't imagine a less hospitable place for cryptographic integrity than the DOM.
Some people are of the opinion that the usefulness of being able to do crypto in people's browsers outweighs exactly how inhospitable it is. I don't share this opinion.
In most circumstances, something bad might be preferable to nothing at all. I think crypto is one of the rare exceptions where "bad" is actually worse than none.
My alternative suggestions are conservative: PGP and TLS
These suggestions aren't particularly exciting, however, so people keep looking for other, newer, ones.
I'm actually in the small minority of security people who don't think it's feasible to discourage people from trying to muck around with crypto. It's like sitting a kid in front of a television,handing them a video game controller, and then telling them not to play video games.
Crypto is an attractive nuisance. It also seems like it answers a lot of our problems (it actually answers far less than we think, and just creates new ones in their place), so people naturally are inclined to experiment with it.
So I hope someday to be wrong about crypto in the browser, because it'd be great. But right now, it's sort of like trying to fancy up a glory hole.
Some people are of the opinion that the usefulness of being able to do crypto in people's browsers outweighs exactly how inhospitable it is. I don't share this opinion.
In most circumstances, something bad might be preferable to nothing at all. I think crypto is one of the rare exceptions where "bad" is actually worse than none.
My alternative suggestions are conservative: PGP and TLS
These suggestions aren't particularly exciting, however, so people keep looking for other, newer, ones.
I'm actually in the small minority of security people who don't think it's feasible to discourage people from trying to muck around with crypto. It's like sitting a kid in front of a television,handing them a video game controller, and then telling them not to play video games.
Crypto is an attractive nuisance. It also seems like it answers a lot of our problems (it actually answers far less than we think, and just creates new ones in their place), so people naturally are inclined to experiment with it.
So I hope someday to be wrong about crypto in the browser, because it'd be great. But right now, it's sort of like trying to fancy up a glory hole.
I'll admit that browser-based scripting isn't high on my list of secure environments either. It does, however, do a nice job of getting around the fundamental problem of finding some environment that's reliably and consistently available. It also nicely end-runs the problem of trusting a remote site to hold your data in confidence.
There's the remaining problem of key management, though for many people, browser-based password managers are a reasonable mechanism.
PGP/GPG and TLS still provide key management issues (with several notable registrar incidents in the past year). And even if you're, say, parking a public key on a site to autoencrypt material sent there (assuming it's not encrypted prior to upload), there's the question of how you're going to interact with encrypted data on that site. I see three basic options: server-side encrypt/decrypt, browser-based, or client-side non-browser utilities. In the latter case, you now have a wide range of environments (Windows variants, Mac, Linux, etc.) to support.
Not saying it can't happen, but good crypto is hard.
Even the pros (PGP) ended up using a server-based solution which had both public and private keys on it as their solution to the key-management problem.
There's the remaining problem of key management, though for many people, browser-based password managers are a reasonable mechanism.
PGP/GPG and TLS still provide key management issues (with several notable registrar incidents in the past year). And even if you're, say, parking a public key on a site to autoencrypt material sent there (assuming it's not encrypted prior to upload), there's the question of how you're going to interact with encrypted data on that site. I see three basic options: server-side encrypt/decrypt, browser-based, or client-side non-browser utilities. In the latter case, you now have a wide range of environments (Windows variants, Mac, Linux, etc.) to support.
Not saying it can't happen, but good crypto is hard.
Even the pros (PGP) ended up using a server-based solution which had both public and private keys on it as their solution to the key-management problem.
http://www.w3.org/2011/11/webcryptography-charter.html
Something like this is the ONLY way I can see crypto in the browser gain any credibility and traction. Crypto in the JS is not only potentially the easiest attack vector, it's also abhorrently slow. With native browser constructs we get access to safe(r) implementations which cannot be DOM manipulated, MITMed or simply replaced at load time. We get access to speed boosts by running natively and on hardware supporting AESNI it can zoom.
Something like this is the ONLY way I can see crypto in the browser gain any credibility and traction. Crypto in the JS is not only potentially the easiest attack vector, it's also abhorrently slow. With native browser constructs we get access to safe(r) implementations which cannot be DOM manipulated, MITMed or simply replaced at load time. We get access to speed boosts by running natively and on hardware supporting AESNI it can zoom.
As long as they stick to distribution and advocacy rather than creating new tech, I'm all for this. Crypto is very hard to do right - one example from last year:
http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2011-01-18-tarsnap-critical-...
http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2011-01-18-tarsnap-critical-...
Not only is it hard to do right, it seems like its often even hard to take crypto that's done right and use it right.
Crypto is very hard to do right
Very true. And simply raising awareness of that point itself, is a valuable thing. That said, there are (or were) actual skilled professionals, with the knowledge to create new crypto schemes, etc. in the cypherpunk community. But clearly not everyone falls into that bucket.
Very true. And simply raising awareness of that point itself, is a valuable thing. That said, there are (or were) actual skilled professionals, with the knowledge to create new crypto schemes, etc. in the cypherpunk community. But clearly not everyone falls into that bucket.
[deleted]
Maybe these people feel it's no longer safe for them to be so vocal about it. Maybe even for the exact reasons you are mentioning they should be angered by.
Ding! Ding! Ding! I think we have a winner. It's a self reinforcing effect too. The less people that speak out the less people that speak out because nobody else is.
I don't think that fear is really the culprit here.
People on the internet don't seem to have trouble speaking out about all sorts of other things.
I think the issues which are fundamental to the cypherpunk ethos (if such a thing can be said to exist‡) just aren't things most people care about. And you can totally make a valid argument that this will pretty much ensure that the worst-case scenario is the one that will come to pass (if you are so inclined).
But I don't get the impression that there's this large contingent of people who are actually interested in this who aren't participating because they're worried. I'd love to be wrong though, as that would mean that there could be a much more lively and productive community to swell up.
‡ although this is as good a stab at it as any: http://www.cypherpunks.to/faq/cyphernomicron/cyphernomicon.t...
People on the internet don't seem to have trouble speaking out about all sorts of other things.
I think the issues which are fundamental to the cypherpunk ethos (if such a thing can be said to exist‡) just aren't things most people care about. And you can totally make a valid argument that this will pretty much ensure that the worst-case scenario is the one that will come to pass (if you are so inclined).
But I don't get the impression that there's this large contingent of people who are actually interested in this who aren't participating because they're worried. I'd love to be wrong though, as that would mean that there could be a much more lively and productive community to swell up.
‡ although this is as good a stab at it as any: http://www.cypherpunks.to/faq/cyphernomicron/cyphernomicon.t...
Yes, that's part of the reason for this blog post, and why I posted it here to HN. Sometimes you need somebody to stir the pot a little and try to stimulate the conversation.
Maybe these people feel it's no longer safe for them to be so vocal about it.
Could be. And that's a pretty sad thought, given that we (those of us in the USA anyway) live in a country where "free speech" has traditionally been one of the most fundamental and cherished principles.
Could be. And that's a pretty sad thought, given that we (those of us in the USA anyway) live in a country where "free speech" has traditionally been one of the most fundamental and cherished principles.
It's not safe to be vocal as this requires one to verbalize and linguistically behave as per needs of audience.
Most of the time the jargon of technology upsets the cognitive sensibilities of the layperson. At the same time, negative feedback to the presentation of one's technical views generally determines a depressive curve in one's perceived value of one's abilities.
This is why khanacademy.com, coursera.com et al. are becoming successfully: the technology _is enabling_ general audience to see the posterchildren of our industry. We are expected to not simply learn from their exams, but are at once being forced to adopt a teaching method. They're talking about what we are supposed to already know. Are they doing it better? Their demonstrations are tests of our capacities as contributors to society a al Google, all the way down to overworked Java veteran. Your debt to society is the repetition of your reputation. You'd rather be talking about optimization than sitcoms anyway, and most people are talking about sitcoms or Facebook. As social media blurs the line between what is on "TV" and what is on "the screen," those in the know will more readily experience the curse of knowledge. It supplies a baseline for conversation, for one: one is able to engage in demonstration and dialectic, which is antagonistic to idle conversation. It's constant what one's professing of one's Web-enabled escapades outlines a narrative pre-established by user interface workflows and business and advertisement initiatives. Constantly does this run through the minds of rational technophobists. And we are fast approaching a reality where passive adoption of the narrative of another as regards one's Internet identity sharply delineates character of lifestyle, more readily than simply wearing a certain manner of garment or having certain sense of taste. One is deciding on a question of openness, the last vestige of autonomy. Our opinions, then, I believe rest on principles of assessment for qualities of openness: organized openness, informed openness, civil openness.
A society can be "open" where information in general may be a clutter of human desire, -- or an organized system of thought. Many question the "aesthetic" of technologists, the ethos. How much of that have we mismanaged, or is simply outside of our control, in a world rife with political disorganization and corruption? It is now easy for anyone to cook up Hitler-esque ethical quandaries against groups of programmers who only want to experiment with people, as Spinoza would put it, "as it follows from the nature of a triangle." We are seeing it now: the social risk of projects like Google Glass, tacocopter.com, etc. This is our experiment style, and now humans are the experiment.
Most people in developed countries are practicing hedonism. What more do you expect from the rest, in a world full of free info on how to compile apache or use beef and cheap Amazon supercomputers?
Most of the time the jargon of technology upsets the cognitive sensibilities of the layperson. At the same time, negative feedback to the presentation of one's technical views generally determines a depressive curve in one's perceived value of one's abilities.
This is why khanacademy.com, coursera.com et al. are becoming successfully: the technology _is enabling_ general audience to see the posterchildren of our industry. We are expected to not simply learn from their exams, but are at once being forced to adopt a teaching method. They're talking about what we are supposed to already know. Are they doing it better? Their demonstrations are tests of our capacities as contributors to society a al Google, all the way down to overworked Java veteran. Your debt to society is the repetition of your reputation. You'd rather be talking about optimization than sitcoms anyway, and most people are talking about sitcoms or Facebook. As social media blurs the line between what is on "TV" and what is on "the screen," those in the know will more readily experience the curse of knowledge. It supplies a baseline for conversation, for one: one is able to engage in demonstration and dialectic, which is antagonistic to idle conversation. It's constant what one's professing of one's Web-enabled escapades outlines a narrative pre-established by user interface workflows and business and advertisement initiatives. Constantly does this run through the minds of rational technophobists. And we are fast approaching a reality where passive adoption of the narrative of another as regards one's Internet identity sharply delineates character of lifestyle, more readily than simply wearing a certain manner of garment or having certain sense of taste. One is deciding on a question of openness, the last vestige of autonomy. Our opinions, then, I believe rest on principles of assessment for qualities of openness: organized openness, informed openness, civil openness.
A society can be "open" where information in general may be a clutter of human desire, -- or an organized system of thought. Many question the "aesthetic" of technologists, the ethos. How much of that have we mismanaged, or is simply outside of our control, in a world rife with political disorganization and corruption? It is now easy for anyone to cook up Hitler-esque ethical quandaries against groups of programmers who only want to experiment with people, as Spinoza would put it, "as it follows from the nature of a triangle." We are seeing it now: the social risk of projects like Google Glass, tacocopter.com, etc. This is our experiment style, and now humans are the experiment.
Most people in developed countries are practicing hedonism. What more do you expect from the rest, in a world full of free info on how to compile apache or use beef and cheap Amazon supercomputers?
I see the issue as being that secure tools, such as GnuPGP, are still way too complicated and confusing for the average activist to use, thus people don't bother and use low-tech solutions to communicate for day-to-day protesting. If someone is organising something big and scary, they'd learn to use PGP and use it.
I see the issue as being that secure tools, such as GnuPGP, are still way too complicated and confusing for the average activist to use
Yes, I think that is very true. That's why I think two of the goals of a modern cypherpunk movement should be to: A. educate people on how to use encryption and related tools, and B. work on making tools that are simpler to use / easier to understand in the first place.
Yes, I think that is very true. That's why I think two of the goals of a modern cypherpunk movement should be to: A. educate people on how to use encryption and related tools, and B. work on making tools that are simpler to use / easier to understand in the first place.
The advent of social networking can actually help make this stuff easier for normal people. The hardest part is managing a web of trust. If you can automate building your web of trust on top of existing social network connections, you can get strong crypto that's easy to use.
There are just too many competing voices. For example, the "techno-libertarian" types have to "compete" with the voices of the net neutraily crowd, as well as the pro-piracy crowd. Unfortunately, all three camps use the same terminology to express totally different view and ideas.
I don't care to spend time advocating techno-libertarian positions (that I agree with), just to see a larger mass of piracy people [mis] using the same words (e.g. freedom, rights, etc.) to try to justify a position that I personally find abhorrent.
I don't care to spend time advocating techno-libertarian positions (that I agree with), just to see a larger mass of piracy people [mis] using the same words (e.g. freedom, rights, etc.) to try to justify a position that I personally find abhorrent.
why compete? i saw the guy was a libertarian (and, perhaps worse, some kind of smelly metal head), which is not my scene at all, but i still emailed him to be added to any kind of list because i think privacy is important.
if the list ends up being for "crypto to avoid paying taxes so the poor die as darwin wanted" then sure, i wouldn't join. but i think there's a clear need for a unified voice on crypto and online rights.
worse, i think you are doing this a disservice, in that you're implying that these rights are only important for your group of people. these rights are important for all of us. even metal-head libertarians.
incidentally, i would also encourage people to donate to eff - almost all the free gifts they give you for donating are horrible, but the hat pin is actually really nice. so go buy a $100 dollar hat pin and help spread some good.
if the list ends up being for "crypto to avoid paying taxes so the poor die as darwin wanted" then sure, i wouldn't join. but i think there's a clear need for a unified voice on crypto and online rights.
worse, i think you are doing this a disservice, in that you're implying that these rights are only important for your group of people. these rights are important for all of us. even metal-head libertarians.
incidentally, i would also encourage people to donate to eff - almost all the free gifts they give you for donating are horrible, but the hat pin is actually really nice. so go buy a $100 dollar hat pin and help spread some good.
if the list ends up being for "crypto to avoid paying taxes so the poor die as darwin wanted" then sure, i wouldn't join. but i think there's a clear need for a unified voice on crypto and online rights.
The thing about privacy is, you don't know what end it does serve. I personally am a Libertarian (and a metal-head, yes, although I'm getting too old for a lot of moshing and shit), but I certainly advocate for privacy rights independently of any other Libertarian position. If I'm using crypto to discuss my beliefs about ending tax-payer subsidized entitlement programs, others may simultaneously be using it to discuss their desire to raise taxes, end all private property and redistribute wealth "to each according to his need."
but i think there's a clear need for a unified voice on crypto and online rights.
Yes, this is one area where Libertarians and most left-leaning types can find some common ground.
The thing about privacy is, you don't know what end it does serve. I personally am a Libertarian (and a metal-head, yes, although I'm getting too old for a lot of moshing and shit), but I certainly advocate for privacy rights independently of any other Libertarian position. If I'm using crypto to discuss my beliefs about ending tax-payer subsidized entitlement programs, others may simultaneously be using it to discuss their desire to raise taxes, end all private property and redistribute wealth "to each according to his need."
but i think there's a clear need for a unified voice on crypto and online rights.
Yes, this is one area where Libertarians and most left-leaning types can find some common ground.
I'm not really responding to the idea of having a list; I'm responding to the quesiton of why advocacy of certain "libertarian crypto" type positions may have sort of gone away a lot lately.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm a curmudgeon, but what I'm basically saying is that there are a lot of people out there arguing for inane positions, and it's drowning and/or cancelling out the people arguing for good positions. And just generally makes their lives less enjoyable.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm a curmudgeon, but what I'm basically saying is that there are a lot of people out there arguing for inane positions, and it's drowning and/or cancelling out the people arguing for good positions. And just generally makes their lives less enjoyable.
Maybe they are all exposing their private data to Facebook.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/technolibertarians/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/technolibertarians/
It's impossible to provide good tools for your average user without getting some government actively working to destroy it. There are already great tools for experienced users but I can't for the life of me figure out how to get my friends to send email using PGP even if I install it and set it up for them. They seem confused by the whole concept.
I think there's a bit more focus on networks than on cryptography lately among freelance activist type people. But if you include that, there is still substantial activity. Tor is going fairly strongly, Retroshare has recently gotten a big uptake in publicity, and some other darknet projects have been floated. The focus seems to be on hard-to-disrupt connectivity, with some indirect association with groups like Wikileaks who aim at using that connectivity to promote state/corporate transparency (which is actually pretty close to an old-school "information wants to be free!" agenda). In Europe, there's also been a rise in "Pirate Parties", which despite their name are more generally interested in techno-freedom issues, not purely copyright-infringement issues.
This is the inevitable result of social news sites. Most people are not libertarian, and so they down vote comments that don't fit their ideology. On Reddit in many subreddits (including the politics one everyone is subscribed to by default) they practice outright censorship.
Here on HN the down vote seems to be deployed for disagreement, even against well written comments that include substantiation.
Fortunately, Libertarianism is far more mainstream now, even if the Ron Paul movement has managed to dilute it to some extent.
Here on HN the down vote seems to be deployed for disagreement, even against well written comments that include substantiation.
Fortunately, Libertarianism is far more mainstream now, even if the Ron Paul movement has managed to dilute it to some extent.
Fortunately, Libertarianism is far more mainstream now, even if the Ron Paul movement has managed to dilute it to some extent.
I think that may be inherent to making anything more mainstream. It's useful to have people who remain attached to the core ideology of a movement, but getting things done generally requires working with other people. If the Ron Paul movement brings a bunch of people to libertarianism then other libertarians should support it, even if Ron Paul is pretty far from their idea of the ideal libertarian candidate.
I'm the creator and moderator of /r/ronpaul. In my observation, the idea of voting based on quality rather than agreement is entirely absent from larger political subreddits. People vote to promote their side and are particularly likely to vote that way in a fight that has degenerated in to name calling when the ideal situation would be downvotes for all involved.
I think that may be inherent to making anything more mainstream. It's useful to have people who remain attached to the core ideology of a movement, but getting things done generally requires working with other people. If the Ron Paul movement brings a bunch of people to libertarianism then other libertarians should support it, even if Ron Paul is pretty far from their idea of the ideal libertarian candidate.
I'm the creator and moderator of /r/ronpaul. In my observation, the idea of voting based on quality rather than agreement is entirely absent from larger political subreddits. People vote to promote their side and are particularly likely to vote that way in a fight that has degenerated in to name calling when the ideal situation would be downvotes for all involved.
That's part of it, but also the 'core' of most political movements tend to be whack jobs. The type of people that say "Keep the government out of my medicare!!!" are often willingness support the cause both financially and by donating their time, even if they don't actually understand what's going on. After all it's not really rational to spend but so much effort when it's unlikely that you will make any type of noticeable difference.
Does people getting downvoted on /r/politics really have a strong impact on what technologies are being built to advance freedom? Somehow I would guess that absolutely anything could happen in /r/politics and it would be irrelevant to changing that outcome; the question of downvotes on reddit, in any direction, feels more like a sideshow debate than where real action is likely to be found. I'm not sure it's even much of a tech crowd, since reddit is pretty mainstream (among young people) these days, not limited to techies like 90s internet discussion boards were.
Around here I see a lot of libertarians, unless my perception is somehow skewed. I certainly feel left of the HN mainstream, anyway, though it's not a monolithic community. (My own take on crypto-anarchism and cypherpunk is more a skepticism of organized power in general, whether it's a state, corporation, or religion, which is a bit different from libertarianism per se.)
Around here I see a lot of libertarians, unless my perception is somehow skewed. I certainly feel left of the HN mainstream, anyway, though it's not a monolithic community. (My own take on crypto-anarchism and cypherpunk is more a skepticism of organized power in general, whether it's a state, corporation, or religion, which is a bit different from libertarianism per se.)
Great comment. Unfortunately, Libertarians get too closely associated with Republicans, because the sad truth is that many people do not even know what Libertarians stand for. I have always said that in the simplest terms, Libertarians are really just interested in freedom - social freedom (like Democrats) and financial freedom (like Republicans).
This reminds me of a quote:
"Democrats want the government to be their mother; republicans want the government to be their father. Libertarians just want to be treated like adults."
from what I see, libertarians can be ones who blame their mother and father for their troubles :)
but in all seriousness, I think out of the three, libertarianism is the only one that claims to be borne out of stable and unchanging "priciples" regarding individual freedom. By doing this, libertarians often invite criticism because of the bold claim that their position is based on principles, which implies it can withstand -- indeed would welcome -- being taken to its logical extreme. But the extreme is pretty much anarchy and is easy to criticize, considering that all developed countries HAVE governments -- typically in some form of republic. Collective action problems such as pollution of a commons or driving on a highway require some enforcement. And thus libertarians, by touting "principles", invite argument about extreme implementations of those principles. When in reality, many people who lean libertarian are probably looking at the other side of the bell curve where there are diminishing returns from regulation.
That said, I want to emphasize that distributed systems on the internet do work better than centralized systems -- and I am passionate about that, so in some sense I am a libertarian myself! But internet servers typically coexist peacefully and thus do not require centralized enforcement of laws to protect them from each other.
but in all seriousness, I think out of the three, libertarianism is the only one that claims to be borne out of stable and unchanging "priciples" regarding individual freedom. By doing this, libertarians often invite criticism because of the bold claim that their position is based on principles, which implies it can withstand -- indeed would welcome -- being taken to its logical extreme. But the extreme is pretty much anarchy and is easy to criticize, considering that all developed countries HAVE governments -- typically in some form of republic. Collective action problems such as pollution of a commons or driving on a highway require some enforcement. And thus libertarians, by touting "principles", invite argument about extreme implementations of those principles. When in reality, many people who lean libertarian are probably looking at the other side of the bell curve where there are diminishing returns from regulation.
That said, I want to emphasize that distributed systems on the internet do work better than centralized systems -- and I am passionate about that, so in some sense I am a libertarian myself! But internet servers typically coexist peacefully and thus do not require centralized enforcement of laws to protect them from each other.
What separates Libertarians from Anarchists is that they are not anti-government, they are anti-"large government"; in other words, they want only a necessary framework to maintain peace and stability, and nothing more (whatever can be privatized, in their opinion, should be). Whether this is a correct view or not is the subject of much debate, as there are both benefits and drawbacks to government-run organizations, and not all can be put in the same bucket (for example, the Department of Transportation might be more justified as a govt. organization than, say, the dept. of Education). (Don't get me wrong, I am all for public education, but the price we pay in taxes goes towards a lot of bureaucratic overhead, and public teachers get the short-end of the stick when it comes to salary).
A single payer system for public education is different than, for example, than an education system run entirely by the public sector. Typically there is quite a bit of outsourcing to the private sector anyway (in construction and maintenance of schools, etc.) But primary school education is paid for with public money in pretty much all developed countries around the world. The reason for that is:
Every developed country also has a single payer healthcare system (and now the US is joining them). The reason is that the public wants EVERYONE to have access to basic education and EVERYONE to have access to basic healthcare, regardless of income level. And they can collectively bargain better when there is a single payer. A free market actually results in higher prices. To be fair, by having so much power when negotiating with healthcare/education providers, the public needs to take care lest they stifle investment and innovation in those sectors. There is some central planning (with respect to budgets and allocation) that takes place now. But on the whole, having these services be cheaper for the public is a big advantage when needed, such as when there are more poor people.
As a result, there are certain regulations for schools that are paid for by public money. There has been a lot of action in our area (and I suspect around the US) about opening charter schools. These are schools that are funded with public money but are not subject to all the regulations that public schools are, and can take innovative approaches. For obvious reasons, they are different from private schools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_school
This is where you could use vouchers to send your kids. They still have to do things like have adequate transportation, serve certain groups of minorities, help underprivileged kids, and so forth.
However, I do agree with you in that I don't think there is much support in the US Constitution for a Federal Department of Education.
Every developed country also has a single payer healthcare system (and now the US is joining them). The reason is that the public wants EVERYONE to have access to basic education and EVERYONE to have access to basic healthcare, regardless of income level. And they can collectively bargain better when there is a single payer. A free market actually results in higher prices. To be fair, by having so much power when negotiating with healthcare/education providers, the public needs to take care lest they stifle investment and innovation in those sectors. There is some central planning (with respect to budgets and allocation) that takes place now. But on the whole, having these services be cheaper for the public is a big advantage when needed, such as when there are more poor people.
As a result, there are certain regulations for schools that are paid for by public money. There has been a lot of action in our area (and I suspect around the US) about opening charter schools. These are schools that are funded with public money but are not subject to all the regulations that public schools are, and can take innovative approaches. For obvious reasons, they are different from private schools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_school
This is where you could use vouchers to send your kids. They still have to do things like have adequate transportation, serve certain groups of minorities, help underprivileged kids, and so forth.
However, I do agree with you in that I don't think there is much support in the US Constitution for a Federal Department of Education.
What separates Libertarians from Anarchists [...]
Well, there's quite a bit of overlap. Even "big-L Libertarians", meaning those who belong to the Libertarian Party in the US, are not infrequently actually free-market anarchists.
Well, there's quite a bit of overlap. Even "big-L Libertarians", meaning those who belong to the Libertarian Party in the US, are not infrequently actually free-market anarchists.
If we had a small government what would stop the rich from spending money to make it large? Some might argue that's exactly what happened in the US. I think the US' behavior as of late demonstrates that writing something in a "constitution" won't stop it from happening.
I think we've seen what Libertarianism leads to (the Gilded Age, the late 19th Century in general, really) and "treated like adults" only holds if you think an "adult" has an outright hostile work environment and no hope for advancement.
Couple that with the Libertarian love of gold as a currency and you have even more of the worst of the 19th Century in that political ideology.
Couple that with the Libertarian love of gold as a currency and you have even more of the worst of the 19th Century in that political ideology.
Yes, libertarianism does lead to the rapid advancement of a society from third world conditions to first world conditions, including a rapid and significant improvement in the standard of living for the poorest people in the society, and in fact, in the US, until it was derailed by socialists, much progress in the elimination of poverty itself. It really is a shame that some people are so jealous of others that they would prefer that an entire society be kept in poverty than risk broadly distributed wealth and some people being obscenely rich.
As for gold, I suggest you study the history of money, and economics while you're at it, and pay particularly close attention to the predictions and results of those "libertarian economists", the austrians. It was Mises himself who was laughed at by his fellow austrians when he predicted the Nazis would occupy the country a year hence, only to be proven right. It was also Mises who predicted the great depression and its cause, prior to it happening. Personally, I made out like a bandit during the housing boom, and bubble, and bursting, all due to being tipped off by the Mises Institute that one was coming, as far back as 2001. So, go ahead and be smug about gold while the monetary base has gone vertical. What threat can you be to libertarians when the market has proven us right (and continues to do so)?
Seriously, though, your comment is a bunch of assertions, much like mine above. Alas, in the end I made an argument because I'm seemingly incapable of responding without making an argument.
There really is no point to posting the things you did about libertarianism. Libertarians have heard these claims before, and since they're not really honest (and can't be, because reality is far more complex than that) the only real point to them is either to start conflict or to signal to others.
Libertarians believe in the non-aggression principle. (In fact this defines libertarianism.) The NAP. This is what they mean by "treating people like adults."
The initiation of force is immoral. IF you want to argue against libertarianism, show how it is moral to initiate force. IF you want to argue against a libertarian policy position, show how it violates the NAP.
Don't just vaguely name things that you imagine are scary ("Gilded Age" for instance) and then assert they are examples of libertarianism. (Shall I lay slavery at your feet? Would it be productive if I did?)
As for gold, I suggest you study the history of money, and economics while you're at it, and pay particularly close attention to the predictions and results of those "libertarian economists", the austrians. It was Mises himself who was laughed at by his fellow austrians when he predicted the Nazis would occupy the country a year hence, only to be proven right. It was also Mises who predicted the great depression and its cause, prior to it happening. Personally, I made out like a bandit during the housing boom, and bubble, and bursting, all due to being tipped off by the Mises Institute that one was coming, as far back as 2001. So, go ahead and be smug about gold while the monetary base has gone vertical. What threat can you be to libertarians when the market has proven us right (and continues to do so)?
Seriously, though, your comment is a bunch of assertions, much like mine above. Alas, in the end I made an argument because I'm seemingly incapable of responding without making an argument.
There really is no point to posting the things you did about libertarianism. Libertarians have heard these claims before, and since they're not really honest (and can't be, because reality is far more complex than that) the only real point to them is either to start conflict or to signal to others.
Libertarians believe in the non-aggression principle. (In fact this defines libertarianism.) The NAP. This is what they mean by "treating people like adults."
The initiation of force is immoral. IF you want to argue against libertarianism, show how it is moral to initiate force. IF you want to argue against a libertarian policy position, show how it violates the NAP.
Don't just vaguely name things that you imagine are scary ("Gilded Age" for instance) and then assert they are examples of libertarianism. (Shall I lay slavery at your feet? Would it be productive if I did?)
>in the US, until it was derailed by socialists
I don't suppose I could convince you to point to a link/paper/whatever that describes exactly what you mean here? Because, no offense, but so far this sounds like Rush Limbaugh-style labeling.
I'd also like to see an example, if you have one of Libertarianism working anywhere at a reasonable scale. Having no safety net (assuming Libertarianism implies that) means some peoples' very survival falls to the charity of others.
Personally I think the US already had its Libertarian utopia and the current state is the result. Innovation is terribly difficult and expensive and will simply be ripped off if it even works, so Game theory tells me that any big company will be doing what ever they can to avoid it. A simple choice is investing money in growing the government to erect barriers to entry in your market.
>As for gold, I suggest you study the history of money, and economics while you're at it, and pay particularly close attention to the predictions and results of those "libertarian economists", the austrians.
Well, to me the issue is "currency shared across multiple autonomous economic systems" vs each system having its own currency. Gold is just another entity that has an expectations-based value like fiat currency is. Tying ones currency to it seems to me little different than tying one currency to another currency (e.g. China -> USD). This is why I've, so far, written off the argument of going back to a gold standard. What if you need to depress your currency for international competitive reasons?
I don't suppose I could convince you to point to a link/paper/whatever that describes exactly what you mean here? Because, no offense, but so far this sounds like Rush Limbaugh-style labeling.
I'd also like to see an example, if you have one of Libertarianism working anywhere at a reasonable scale. Having no safety net (assuming Libertarianism implies that) means some peoples' very survival falls to the charity of others.
Personally I think the US already had its Libertarian utopia and the current state is the result. Innovation is terribly difficult and expensive and will simply be ripped off if it even works, so Game theory tells me that any big company will be doing what ever they can to avoid it. A simple choice is investing money in growing the government to erect barriers to entry in your market.
>As for gold, I suggest you study the history of money, and economics while you're at it, and pay particularly close attention to the predictions and results of those "libertarian economists", the austrians.
Well, to me the issue is "currency shared across multiple autonomous economic systems" vs each system having its own currency. Gold is just another entity that has an expectations-based value like fiat currency is. Tying ones currency to it seems to me little different than tying one currency to another currency (e.g. China -> USD). This is why I've, so far, written off the argument of going back to a gold standard. What if you need to depress your currency for international competitive reasons?
I made out like a bandit
Perhaps not the best reply to someone complaining about robber barons. ;)
Perhaps not the best reply to someone complaining about robber barons. ;)
> So, go ahead and be smug about gold
You have no idea about basic economics and it isn't my job to teach you. Look up 'deflation' and read this:
http://m.cnbc.com/id/40088925/Roubini_Here_s_Why_a_Gold_Stan...
Finally, the gold standard would still be fiat currency. Governments only stay on it when it benefits them, or when they think it does, and can go off it at any time.
> libertarianism does lead to the rapid advancement of a society from third world conditions to first world conditions
Only by allowing companies to optimize for profit and advancement at the expense of everything else.
That's it, really: The Libertarian ideal of free markets deciding practically everything means that whoever gets ahead in the free market can write their own laws, effectively, and not have to worry about any externalities (like pollution, or injured workers, or so on) they create.
You also haven't made the case for it helping a country that's already in the First World.
> Libertarians believe in the non-aggression principle.
Which is simplistic in that it deliberately ignores all of the ways to initiate force that companies actually engage in (union-busting, polluting, legislation-purchasing) and focuses on the crap they don't do, like breaking-and-entering or outright homicide.
> IF you want to argue against libertarianism, show how it is moral to initiate force.
No. Not valid. I must merely show that Libertarianism is a sub-optimal way to prevent the initiation of force, which I have above.
> you imagine are scary ("Gilded Age" for instance)
You really don't know how bad the Gilded Age was, do you?
You have no idea about basic economics and it isn't my job to teach you. Look up 'deflation' and read this:
http://m.cnbc.com/id/40088925/Roubini_Here_s_Why_a_Gold_Stan...
Finally, the gold standard would still be fiat currency. Governments only stay on it when it benefits them, or when they think it does, and can go off it at any time.
> libertarianism does lead to the rapid advancement of a society from third world conditions to first world conditions
Only by allowing companies to optimize for profit and advancement at the expense of everything else.
That's it, really: The Libertarian ideal of free markets deciding practically everything means that whoever gets ahead in the free market can write their own laws, effectively, and not have to worry about any externalities (like pollution, or injured workers, or so on) they create.
You also haven't made the case for it helping a country that's already in the First World.
> Libertarians believe in the non-aggression principle.
Which is simplistic in that it deliberately ignores all of the ways to initiate force that companies actually engage in (union-busting, polluting, legislation-purchasing) and focuses on the crap they don't do, like breaking-and-entering or outright homicide.
> IF you want to argue against libertarianism, show how it is moral to initiate force.
No. Not valid. I must merely show that Libertarianism is a sub-optimal way to prevent the initiation of force, which I have above.
> you imagine are scary ("Gilded Age" for instance)
You really don't know how bad the Gilded Age was, do you?
>Most people are not libertarian, and so they down vote comments that don't fit their ideology.
Libertarianism is an ideology too.
Wikipedia: "Libertarianism is generally considered to be the group of political philosophies which emphasize freedom, individual liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarianism is variously defined by sources. There is no general consensus among scholars on the precise definition nor on how one should use the term as a historical category. Libertarians generally advocate a society with little or no government power."
All of these beliefs reek ideology. You don't get a free pass saying "I'm for freedom". Not only because there are different kinds of freedoms, but also because any direction you pursue is full of assumptions of what society is and should be, what is the best for the individual and society, etc.
But the best sign that you are advocating an ideology, is if you are considering all other beliefs as ideologies and not yours. Like the above comment does.
Politics entails ideology. Presenting your view as some kind of empirical hard science is bullshit. And, as an aside, it's what the so-called "vulgar marxists" did.
(Not only Libertarianism is ideology, it's also mostly geographically and culturally constrained: it's first and foremost an American product).
Libertarianism is an ideology too.
Wikipedia: "Libertarianism is generally considered to be the group of political philosophies which emphasize freedom, individual liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarianism is variously defined by sources. There is no general consensus among scholars on the precise definition nor on how one should use the term as a historical category. Libertarians generally advocate a society with little or no government power."
All of these beliefs reek ideology. You don't get a free pass saying "I'm for freedom". Not only because there are different kinds of freedoms, but also because any direction you pursue is full of assumptions of what society is and should be, what is the best for the individual and society, etc.
But the best sign that you are advocating an ideology, is if you are considering all other beliefs as ideologies and not yours. Like the above comment does.
Politics entails ideology. Presenting your view as some kind of empirical hard science is bullshit. And, as an aside, it's what the so-called "vulgar marxists" did.
(Not only Libertarianism is ideology, it's also mostly geographically and culturally constrained: it's first and foremost an American product).
I don't do this often, but I want to tell you I downvoted you for passionately arguing against a strawman. I can find no evidence that nirvana ever claimed libertarianism wasn't an ideology, only that it is a minority one. Unless perhaps there was an edit?
>I don't do this often, but I want to tell you I downvoted you for passionately arguing against a strawman. I can find no evidence that nirvana ever claimed libertarianism wasn't an ideology, only that it is a minority one. Unless perhaps there was an edit?
I don't see any edit, so the current text is what I replied to.
You're saying that "you can find no evidence that nirvana ever claimed libertarianism wasn't an ideology".
Well, I read the sentence: "most people are not libertarian, and so they down vote comments that don't fit their ideology" as a claim that a) libertarianism is not an ideology, b) libertarians don't down vote comments that don't fit their ideology.
Isn't he basically arguing as if libertarians are somehow above downvoting people who disagree with them? That is, they are, somehow, above ideology?
I consider both claims as false.
Even more so, because what the ideology you follow claims and what you practice are not really related. Christians are as prone to breaking the "seven-deadly-sins" as anybody else, and libertarians are just as prone to downvoting people they don't agree with as anybody else.
That I was downvoted because of arguing against libertarianism is as good evidence as any, isn't it?
I don't see any edit, so the current text is what I replied to.
You're saying that "you can find no evidence that nirvana ever claimed libertarianism wasn't an ideology".
Well, I read the sentence: "most people are not libertarian, and so they down vote comments that don't fit their ideology" as a claim that a) libertarianism is not an ideology, b) libertarians don't down vote comments that don't fit their ideology.
Isn't he basically arguing as if libertarians are somehow above downvoting people who disagree with them? That is, they are, somehow, above ideology?
I consider both claims as false.
Even more so, because what the ideology you follow claims and what you practice are not really related. Christians are as prone to breaking the "seven-deadly-sins" as anybody else, and libertarians are just as prone to downvoting people they don't agree with as anybody else.
That I was downvoted because of arguing against libertarianism is as good evidence as any, isn't it?
He actually made no claim whatsoever about the downvoting habits of libertarians. You seem to be inferring the claim from that he thinks that libertarians must be the opposite of those who downvote them. That inference has no basis in this thread.
You are making similar assumptions about the sentence you quote. He only makes claims about the downvoters ideologies, with no reference to libertarians' ideologies. Even if he does think something idiotic like that libertarianism is not an ideology, which I doubt, he had the sense to keep it out of this conversation.
This is practically the definition of the straw man fallacy.
You are making similar assumptions about the sentence you quote. He only makes claims about the downvoters ideologies, with no reference to libertarians' ideologies. Even if he does think something idiotic like that libertarianism is not an ideology, which I doubt, he had the sense to keep it out of this conversation.
This is practically the definition of the straw man fallacy.
>He actually made no claim whatsoever about the downvoting habits of libertarians. You seem to be inferring the claim from that he thinks that libertarians must be the opposite of those who downvote them. That inference has no basis in this thread.
Maybe in some "axiomatic-pure-logic-language-land" what you said holds true, but in real natural language land, when we mention something about X, we do it in order to compare it to that which is not-X.
That is, if we are to assume that the libertarians have the same downvoting habits, then there would be ABSOLUTELY NO NEED for him to even mention the downvoting habits of the rest of the population.
>This is practically the definition of the straw man fallacy.
No, it's practically the very definition of extracting the meaning of a statement beyond what it explicitly states, i.e the very cornerstone of having a discussion: drawing conclusions.
Maybe in some "axiomatic-pure-logic-language-land" what you said holds true, but in real natural language land, when we mention something about X, we do it in order to compare it to that which is not-X.
That is, if we are to assume that the libertarians have the same downvoting habits, then there would be ABSOLUTELY NO NEED for him to even mention the downvoting habits of the rest of the population.
>This is practically the definition of the straw man fallacy.
No, it's practically the very definition of extracting the meaning of a statement beyond what it explicitly states, i.e the very cornerstone of having a discussion: drawing conclusions.
He was merely explaining a phenomenon, with no reference to other phenomena. Only some statements imply comparison, not all.
I think that extracting meaning beyond what a statement explicitly states is actually responsible for a lot if not most of the nonsense that happens in Internet discussions, because it's too easy to be wrong. Best to stick with pure logic when you can, or start off asking questions rather than refuting something they might not have meant.
I think that extracting meaning beyond what a statement explicitly states is actually responsible for a lot if not most of the nonsense that happens in Internet discussions, because it's too easy to be wrong. Best to stick with pure logic when you can, or start off asking questions rather than refuting something they might not have meant.
>He was merely explaining a phenomenon, with no reference to other phenomena. Only some statements imply comparison, not all.
It's worst than that. Re-reading it, he explicitly states:
"most people are not libertarian, AND SO they down vote comments that don't fit their ideology" (emphasis mine).
"AND SO" implies directly and explicitly that "most people"'s downvoting is BECAUSE they "are not libertarian".
Which is the same as to say that if they were libertarians they wouldn't downvote in that way.
That is a claim about the downvoting habits of libertarians, if I ever saw one.
It's worst than that. Re-reading it, he explicitly states:
"most people are not libertarian, AND SO they down vote comments that don't fit their ideology" (emphasis mine).
"AND SO" implies directly and explicitly that "most people"'s downvoting is BECAUSE they "are not libertarian".
Which is the same as to say that if they were libertarians they wouldn't downvote in that way.
That is a claim about the downvoting habits of libertarians, if I ever saw one.
You're wrong. All I was communicating was that libertarianism is a minority of ideologies and thus since most people (including libertarians) tend to down vote comments that support ideologies they disagree with, libertarianism is often under-represented.
Further the rest of your comment was equally fallacious. But by pedantically arguing for your right to put words in my mouth, you have managed to derail the topic into a meta discussion.
So, you illustrate another tactic-- besides downvoting- that is used to prevent effective discussion of libertarianism on social news sites.
Further the rest of your comment was equally fallacious. But by pedantically arguing for your right to put words in my mouth, you have managed to derail the topic into a meta discussion.
So, you illustrate another tactic-- besides downvoting- that is used to prevent effective discussion of libertarianism on social news sites.
>You're wrong. All I was communicating was that libertarianism is a minority of ideologies and thus since most people (including libertarians) tend to down vote comments that support ideologies they disagree with, libertarianism is often under-represented.
If that's "all you was communicating", then you phrased it badly.
"most people are not libertarian, AND SO they down vote comments that don't fit their ideology".
AND SO explicitly states that the reason people vote down post they disagree with is because they are not libertarians.
What you probably WANTED to write --which is made clear only by your subsequent clarification-- is:
"most people are not libertarian AND SO libertarian comments (as well as comments of other marginal ideologies) are voted down more".
Not the same at all.
If that's "all you was communicating", then you phrased it badly.
"most people are not libertarian, AND SO they down vote comments that don't fit their ideology".
AND SO explicitly states that the reason people vote down post they disagree with is because they are not libertarians.
What you probably WANTED to write --which is made clear only by your subsequent clarification-- is:
"most people are not libertarian AND SO libertarian comments (as well as comments of other marginal ideologies) are voted down more".
Not the same at all.
For those that haven't yet had the chance of reading a foundational text related to Cypherpunks and Crypto-Anarchy, there is "The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto" by Tim May (back then a Chief Scientist at Intel) -> http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html
I see the core ideas being diluted into Wikileaks, Anonymous, etc. Those are bad representations of the core ideas.
There are not many people who can lucidly translate the understanding of technology's issues into the language of non-techies. It's not sufficient to be technically correct: it's required that the presentation works as well.
Techies seem to have allergies to other cultures that don't have similar value systems and have largely failed in translating our concerns to the broader world. The old word 'luser' adequately explains our shortcoming.
There are not many people who can lucidly translate the understanding of technology's issues into the language of non-techies. It's not sufficient to be technically correct: it's required that the presentation works as well.
Techies seem to have allergies to other cultures that don't have similar value systems and have largely failed in translating our concerns to the broader world. The old word 'luser' adequately explains our shortcoming.
Diluted? They're the same people.
[deleted]
The underground is still out there. It's just underground.
Get in touch if you'd like to be invited.
Get in touch if you'd like to be invited.
I'm skeptical.
All of the articles cited are indeed about civil liberties, but I don't see them as being problems that can necessarily be improved by developing better cryptography.
The social network propaganda isn't so much of a technological problem as a social one -- people assume that everyone's using social networks in a straightforward way, to express themselves and connect with friends, even though they have the capacity to be used in many other ways, including deceptively.
The NSA email-hoarding thing is also a social problem -- encryption exists, it's just that nobody uses it.
The "pre-crime screening" appears to be a statistical model. I don't yet know if there's a science of counter-machine-learning -- that is, creating examples that are hard for models to classify, analogously to making harder and harder CAPTCHAs. If government gets better at data science, what civil libertarians will need is not better encriptions, but different techniques designed to protect against statistical intrusions.
Likewise, I don't think better crypto is in any straightforward way a protection against biometrics or government bills to take down certain websites.
If he's saying "we need more libertarians and people concerned about civil liberties," then he's right. But I'm not even sure there are fewer than there used to be (look at the backlash to SOPA). I just suspect think there was a time when people had more hope in purely technological fixes to government abuses. I know some old-time crypto-anarchists, and they're largely disappointed with how things have turned out. In the end, preventing the abuse of government power is a hard problem, and it looks less likely that a small set of tech breakthroughs will suddenly make civil liberties violations obsolete.
All of the articles cited are indeed about civil liberties, but I don't see them as being problems that can necessarily be improved by developing better cryptography.
The social network propaganda isn't so much of a technological problem as a social one -- people assume that everyone's using social networks in a straightforward way, to express themselves and connect with friends, even though they have the capacity to be used in many other ways, including deceptively.
The NSA email-hoarding thing is also a social problem -- encryption exists, it's just that nobody uses it.
The "pre-crime screening" appears to be a statistical model. I don't yet know if there's a science of counter-machine-learning -- that is, creating examples that are hard for models to classify, analogously to making harder and harder CAPTCHAs. If government gets better at data science, what civil libertarians will need is not better encriptions, but different techniques designed to protect against statistical intrusions.
Likewise, I don't think better crypto is in any straightforward way a protection against biometrics or government bills to take down certain websites.
If he's saying "we need more libertarians and people concerned about civil liberties," then he's right. But I'm not even sure there are fewer than there used to be (look at the backlash to SOPA). I just suspect think there was a time when people had more hope in purely technological fixes to government abuses. I know some old-time crypto-anarchists, and they're largely disappointed with how things have turned out. In the end, preventing the abuse of government power is a hard problem, and it looks less likely that a small set of tech breakthroughs will suddenly make civil liberties violations obsolete.
> all of the Cypherpunks, Crypto-Anarchists and techno-libertarians seem to have gone into hiding, or disappeared.
Maybe they joined the Pirate Party?
Maybe they joined the Pirate Party?
maybe they are just keeping their communication private by using encryption.
To be honest, more crypto got shipped outside the cypherpunks than within. PGP (of debatable utility now) and otr (the chat encryption) are the main useful systems produced by cypherpunkdom (mixmaster and tor (sort of) too); SSL, Start TLS, IPsec, ssh, ... came from outside.
I'd rather see security and cryptography packaged so it can be widely used by normal app developers, vs. relying on privacy/security aficionados to do everything.
I'd rather see security and cryptography packaged so it can be widely used by normal app developers, vs. relying on privacy/security aficionados to do everything.
SSL, IPsec and the like are for banks, PGP / otr / mixmaster / tor are for dissidents and paranoids. I don't think these are equivalent. (Of course, SSL is very useful.)
I don't read Slashdot or Reddit but on HN I have felt a slow drift from core technology topics towards design and UI. The Applemania is one of the culprit here, I believe.
I am lucky in that 1) my company is really trying to come up with a solution to allow individuals to easily keep their privacy and 2) our funders are strong libertarians who want to see this succeed more than they want an instant return. It's a difficult place to build a business, and impatient investors would make it impossible.
I hope you succeed in what you are setting out to do, if your goal is to truly protect privacy. I have to admit, though, that I am highly skeptical if the solution turns out to be closed, and proprietary. It is a huge risk to place one's security in the hands of something that is a black box.
Thank you. I think about this a lot because I totally agree with you. I'm continually asking what it would take for me to trust me. One thing I know is we can't reach the end straight from the beginning, so we are going to move incrementally.
Eventually, everything has to be open. I wouldn't trust a company with 100% of my data that wasn't. However, there is 10% I would trust with a company like mine today, assuming I got benefits in other areas, and that's where we are starting.
Eventually, everything has to be open. I wouldn't trust a company with 100% of my data that wasn't. However, there is 10% I would trust with a company like mine today, assuming I got benefits in other areas, and that's where we are starting.
Any chance we can get in touch? My company's building something along similar lines, that will help improve privacy all over the web. And it has taken us two years to build the foundation, piece by piece. Contact me at http://qbix.com/about
[deleted]
On the margin, there are some people (Brill) who are self-censoring to avoid/minimize the attention of the ever-growing police state. The hardest core "Welcome to the United States of Orwell, Part 3: We had to Destroy Democracy in Order to Save It": http://goo.gl/s7u6T
A few good references: https://www.calyxinstitute.org/ and https://crypto.is/ | threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/behind-scenes-crypto-project-083011
We are rebuilding crypto.is and moving the site to other servers, we'll be back soon, you can find us at irc.oftc.net #cryptodotis