“Cypherpunks is gripping, vital reading, explaining clearly the way in which corporate and government control of the internet poses a fundamental threat to our freedom and democracy”. – 知名导演Oliver Stone
"Obligatory reading for everyone interested in the reality of our freedoms." —Slavoj Zizek
"The power of this book is that it breaks a silence. It marks an insurrection of subjugated knowledge that is, above all, a warning to all." —John Pilger
Julian Assange 维基解密的总编辑。他曾是cypherpunk的邮寄名单的原始投稿人。阿桑奇是许多与cypherpunk有关联的软体工程的作者，包括Rubberhose加密系统以及维基解密的原本密码。他从高中时期就是一位「有道德的骇客」，在1990年代在澳洲成为积极分子以及网路提供者。他是Underground，一本关于国际骇客行动的历史书，的合著者。他目前住在伦敦的厄瓜多尔大使馆，是一位被厄瓜多尔政府保护的难民。
Jacob Appelbaum是一位在华盛顿大学的研究科学家，也是一位软体开发者以及Tor Project，一个让任何人可以对抗监视以及网路审查的网上匿名系统，的拥护者。
Andy Müller-Maguhn是德国Chaos Computer Club的长期会员以及前代言人。他是监视专家，经营ㄧ家名为Cryptophone的公司，专门销售安全的语音通信设备给客户。
Jérémie Zimmermann是市民拥护者团体La Quadrature du Net的合创办人以及代言人。他们是欧洲最著名维护线上匿名权利以及促进攻击线上自由察觉性的团体。
I want to look at what I see as a difference between a US cypherpunk perspective and the European perspective, which I think is quite interesting. The US Second Amendment is the right to bear arms. Just recently I was watching some footage that a friend shot in the US on the right to bear arms, and above a firearms store it says 'Democracy, Locked and Loaded,' and that’s the way that you ensure that you don’t have totalitarian regimes – that people are armed and if they are pissed off enough, then they simply take their arms and they retake control by force. Whether that argument is still valid now is actually an interesting one because of the difference in the types of arms that have occurred over the past 30 years. So, we can look back to this declaration that code-making, providing secret cryptographic codes that the government couldn’t spy on, was in fact a munition, and this big war that we fought in the 1990s to try and make cryptography available to everyone, which we largely won.
In the West?
In the West we largely won and it's in every browser – it is now perhaps being back-doored and subverted in different kinds of ways. The notion is that you cannot trust a government to implement the policies that it says that it is implementing, and so we must provide the underlying tools, cryptographic tools that we control, as a sort of use of force, in that if the ciphers are good no matter how hard it tries a government cannot break into your communications directly. Maybe it can put a bug in your house or whatever.
Force of authority is derived from violence. One must acknowledge with cryptography no amount of violence will ever solve the math problem.
And this is the important key. It doesn't mean you can't be tortured, it doesn't mean that they can't try and bug your house or subvert it some way but it means that if they find an encrypted message it doesn't matter if they have the force of the authority behind everything that they do, they cannot solve that math problem. This is the thing though that is totally non-obvious to people that are non-technical and it has to be driven home. If we could solve all of those math problems, it would be a different story and, of course, the government will be able to solve those math problems if anyone could.
But it's just a fact. It just happens to be a fact about reality, such as that you can build atomic bombs, that there are math problems that you can create that even the strongest state cannot directly break. I think that was tremendously appealing to Californian libertarians and others who believed in this sort of 'democracy locked and loaded,' and here was a very intellectual way of doing it – of a couple of individuals with cryptography standing up to the full power of the strongest suit of power in the world. And we're still doing that a little bit, but I wonder, I have a view that the likely outcome is that those are really tremendously big economic forces and tremendously big political forces, like Jérémie was saying, and that the natural efficiencies of these technologies compared to the number of human beings will mean that slowly we will end up in a global totalitarian surveillance society. By totalitarian I mean a total surveillance, and that perhaps there'll just be the last free living people – and these last free living people are those who understand how to use this cryptography to defend against this complete, total surveillance, and some people who are completely off-grid, neo-Luddites that have gone into the cave, or traditional tribes-people. And these traditional people have none of the efficiencies of a modern economy so their ability to act is very small. Are we headed for that sort of scenario?
First of all, if you look at it from a market perspective, I'm convinced that there is a market in privacy that has been mostly left unexplored, so maybe there will be an economic drive for companies to develop tools that will give users the individual ability to control their data and communication. Maybe this is one way that we can solve that problem. I'm not sure it can work alone, but this may happen and we may not know it yet. Also it is interesting to see that what you’re describing is the power of the hackers, in a way – 'hackers' in the primary sense of the term, not a criminal. A hacker is a technology enthusiast, is somebody who likes to understand how technology works, not to be trapped into technology but to make it work better. I suppose that when you were five or seven you had a screwdriver and tried to open devices to understand what it was like inside. So, this is what being a hacker is, and hackers built the Internet for many reasons, also because it was fun, and they have developed it and have given the Internet to everybody else. Companies like Google and Facebook saw the opportunity to build business models based on capturing users' personal data. But still we see a form of power in the hands of hackers and what is my primary interest these days is that we see these hackers gaining power, even in the political arenas. In the US there has been these SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act) legislations – violent copyright legislation that basically gives Hollywood the power to order any Internet company to restrict access and to censor the internet.
And banking blockades like the one we're suffering from.
Exactly. What happened to WikiLeaks from the banking companies was becoming the standard method to fight the evil copyright pirates that killed Hollywood and so on. And we witnessed this tremendous uproar from civil society on the Internet – and not only in the US, it couldn't have worked if it was only US citizens who rose up against SOPA and PIPA. It was people all around the world that participated, and hackers were at the core of it and were providing tools to the others to help participate in the public debate.
- 网路叛客: 自由以及网路的未来
- Cypherpunks：FREEDOM AND THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET
- 作者：Julian Assange with Jacob Appelbaum, Andy Müller-Maguhn, Jérémie Zimmermann
- 出版社代理人：OR Books