My original Assassination Politics essay:   https://cryptome.org/ap.htm     
Comment by Robert Vroman
https://news.bitcoin.com/the-jim-bell-system-revisited/                From 
2002, republished 2019 in Bitcoin.com

(Here's the other:  
http://www.idsa.in/system/files/strategicanalysis_sukumaran_0604.pdf   written 
by R. Sukumaran.)

"Let me re-emphasize that I have neither the knowledge nor the will to 
implement this system. I certainly don’t like the State, but I would rather 
concentrate my energies on constructive rather than destructive solutions. That 
said, I still think governments everywhere are going to be staring down the 
barrel of an encrypted gun in the near future, and this article attempts to 
explain why, in response to numerous objections received since my last article."
"**The following article is an opinion piece written in 2002 by the libertarian 
author Robert Vroman. Vroman is well known for his editorial work writing for 
anti-state.com. ‘The Jim Bell System Revisited’ first published on 
anti-state.com on August 15, 2002, in response to “The Jim Bell System” debate. 
This is the second installment of the series written by Vroman. Check out Bob 
Murphy’s and Adam Young’s response to Vroman’s editorial. Bitcoin.com is not 
responsible for or liable for any opinions, content, accuracy or quality within 
the Op-ed article.**"[end partial quote]Jim Bell's Comment below:These are the 
kinds of analyses that the Cypherpunks email list never accomplished, although 
as I discovered last year, the 1995 Cypherpunks archive has been tampered with 
to avoid nearly every appearance of a discussion about my AP essay.  That 
failure to deal with the AP idea was entirely irresponsible:  The ostensible 
goal of Cypherpunks was always the anti-tyrannical analysis of and resistance 
to the usage of technology against the public, and conversely the active use of 
technology to free the public.I should state, now, that I don't believe that 
whoever deleted those 1995 Cypherpunks comments did it for benevolent and 
justifiable reasons.  It has been suggested that these messages were deleted as 
some sort of protective reaction to legal events involving me during 1997 
through 2000. One reason I reject that idea is that nobody could realistically 
believe that the government didn't already have full copies of the CP archive:  
To obtain that, all they would have needed to do was to subscribe to the CP 
list during the year of 1995, and all such emails would have been quickly 
copied to them.  Those emails would never have been erased, once in government 
hands.   Why would they, some agents of the Federal government, not have done 
obtained and kept those CP emails?  And everybody on CP knew, or at least 
reasonably suspected, that the entire archive had been copied and thus couldn't 
be erased so the government would always have access to it.  Nobody would have 
tampered with the CP archive if their goal had been to keep its contents away 
from the Federal government.  They WOULD have had a motive to tamper with the 
CP archive if they wanted to conceal its discussions  from Cypherpunks, as a 
whole.Erasing those emails in the CP archive, if they contained evidence of a 
crime,  would have been an obvious violation of 18 U.S.C. 4, "Misprision of 
Felony".  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misprision_of_felony    Who would have 
risked that?  So, if anybody was considering lying about the existence of those 
messages as a consequence of being asked in any sort of legal proceeding, that 
person would have been risking perjury charges even if the Cypherpunks archive 
had been 'successfuly' manipulated.  That is, if they considered themselves on 
the side opposite to the government.  If, instead, they considered themselves 
on the side of government, THEN they might have decided they had nothing to 
fear by deleting that material.  So, what were the loyalties of the people who 
were maintaining the CP archive during 1995 and later? Now, far more than at 
any other time, the AP idea needs to be considered.  Nobody can say that the 
world doesn't need a solution.  Go ahead and try to disprove it, if you can, 
but as these two articles show above, by Robert Vroman and R. Sukumaran, that 
will not be easy.                  Jim Bell    

Reply via email to