为何自由与隐私如此重要
译文
一份密码朋克宣言
隐私在电子时代对于一个开放的社会是必要的。隐私不是保密。隐私是一个人不想让全世界知道，但是保密是一个人不想让全任何人知道。隐私是一个人对这个世界选择性表达自我的权力。
如果双方有某种交易，那么每一方都有他们互动的记忆。 每一方都可以谈论他们自己对此的记忆； 谁能阻止这发生？人们可以通过法律反对它，但是对于言论自由甚至比隐私更加重要，这是开放社会的基础。如果多方在同一个论坛上共同发言，则每一方都可以与其他所有方共同对话，并将个体的和其他只是汇总在一起。电子通信的力量已经使这种讲话称为可能，它不会仅仅因为我们可能想要它而消失。
既然我们渴望隐私，我们必须确保交易的每方只有直接与该交易相关的必要的信息。鉴于所有信息都能被表达出，我们必须确保尽可能少地透露无关信息。对于大多数例子中的个人标识(ID)的需要并不是十分突出。当我们在商店中购买一本杂志并付款给店员时，并没有必要知道我是谁。当我让我的电子邮箱提供方收发邮件时，我的提供方不需要知道谁与我对话或者我和其他人说了些什么。我的提供方只需要知道如何在那里获取信息以及我欠他们多少费用。当我的身份在交易的底层机制中被揭露了，我就失去了隐私。我不能在这里选择性地展示自己； 我必须 经常 暴露自己。
因此，为了开放社会中的隐私就需要一种匿名交易系统。直到现在，现金是第一个满足这个条件的系统。一个匿名的交易系统不是一个保密的交易系统。一个匿名的交易系统的个体具有想揭露自身身份就揭露的权力；这也是隐私的本质。
在开放社会中的隐私也需要密码学。如果我说了些什么，我只想让我想知道的人知道。如果我的私密讲话被全世界知道，我就失去了隐私。对信息的加密表明了对隐私的追求，使用弱加密算法加密表达的是对与隐私不是特别的追求。此外，为了在默认匿名的情况下显示一个人的身份，需要密码学签名。
我们不能指望政府，企业，其他巨头、不露面的组织出于他们的善意保证我们的隐私。谈论我们对他们是有利的，并且我们认为他们会谈论我们。去尝试保护他们的演讲就是反击信息的真实。信息不是想要自由，而是注定自由。信息扩大到每一个可用的存储空间。信息是谣言更年轻，更强壮的的表亲；信息比谣言更快，有更多的眼睛，知道的更多，了解的更少。
我们必须保护我们的隐私如果我们期望的话。我们必须在一起共同创造允许匿名交易发生的系统。人们在几个世纪内通过耳语，黑暗，信封，紧闭的门，秘密握手和邮递保护他们的隐私。旧时代的科技并不允许有很私密的隐私，但是电子科技可以。
我们密码朋克投入到建设匿名系统。我们使用密码学、匿名邮件、数字签名和电子货币来保卫我们的隐私。
密码朋克编写代码。我们知道有人必须编写软件来保护隐私，并且除非我们都这样做，否则我们无法获得隐私，因此我们将编写它。我们发布我们的代码所以其他的密码朋克可以练习和玩耍这些代码。我们的代码是全世界性的免费使用的。我们并不关心如果你不赞同我们编写的软件。我们知道软件是不可能被毁灭的并且一个大范围部署的系统是不能被关停的。
密码朋克对密码学的规定感到痛惜，因为加密本质上是一种私人行为。事实上，对于加密这种行为，让信息从公众领域中被移除。即使是反对密码学的法律也只能触及一个国家的边界和它的暴力武器。密码朋克会不可避免地在全球发展，伴随着的是匿名交易系统使这成为可能。
为了隐私权的广泛传播它必须成为社会共识的一部分。人们必须为了共同利益来部署这些系统。隐私只能延伸到社会同胞的合作范围内。我们密码朋克寻求您的问题和疑虑，并希望我们可以与您互动，以免我们自欺欺人。然而，我们不会因为有些人可能不同意我们的目标而离开我们的目标。
密码朋克积极致力于使网络更安全以保护隐私。 让我们一起快速前进。
向前。
1993年3月9日
原文
A Cypherpunk’s Manifesto
by Eric Hughes
Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something one doesn’t want the whole world to know, but a secret matter is something one doesn’t want anybody to know. Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world.
If two parties have some sort of dealings, then each has a memory of their interaction. Each party can speak about their own memory of this; how could anyone prevent it? One could pass laws against it, but the freedom of speech, even more than privacy, is fundamental to an open society; we seek not to restrict any speech at all. If many parties speak together in the same forum, each can speak to all the others and aggregate together knowledge about individuals and other parties. The power of electronic communications has enabled such group speech, and it will not go away merely because we might want it to.
Since we desire privacy, we must ensure that each party to a transaction have knowledge only of that which is directly necessary for that transaction. Since any information can be spoken of, we must ensure that we reveal as little as possible. In most cases personal identity is not salient. When I purchase a magazine at a store and hand cash to the clerk, there is no need to know who I am. When I ask my electronic mail provider to send and receive messages, my provider need not know to whom I am speaking or what I am saying or what others are saying to me; my provider only need know how to get the message there and how much I owe them in fees. When my identity is revealed by the underlying mechanism of the transaction, I have no privacy. I cannot here selectively reveal myself; I must always reveal myself.
Therefore, privacy in an open society requires anonymous transaction systems. Until now, cash has been the primary such system. An anonymous transaction system is not a secret transaction system. An anonymous system empowers individuals to reveal their identity when desired and only when desired; this is the essence of privacy.
Privacy in an open society also requires cryptography. If I say something, I want it heard only by those for whom I intend it. If the content of my speech is available to the world, I have no privacy. To encrypt is to indicate the desire for privacy, and to encrypt with weak cryptography is to indicate not too much desire for privacy. Furthermore, to reveal one’s identity with assurance when the default is anonymity requires the cryptographic signature.
We cannot expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant us privacy out of their beneficence. It is to their advantage to speak of us, and we should expect that they will speak. To try to prevent their speech is to fight against the realities of information. Information does not just want to be free, it longs to be free. Information expands to fill the available storage space. Information is Rumor’s younger, stronger cousin; Information is fleeter of foot, has more eyes, knows more, and understands less than Rumor.
We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. We must come together and create systems which allow anonymous transactions to take place. People have been defending their own privacy for centuries with whispers, darkness, envelopes, closed doors, secret handshakes, and couriers. The technologies of the past did not allow for strong privacy, but electronic technologies do.
We the Cypherpunks are dedicated to building anonymous systems. We are defending our privacy with cryptography, with anonymous mail forwarding systems, with digital signatures, and with electronic money.
Cypherpunks write code. We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy, and since we can’t get privacy unless we all do, we’re going to write it. We publish our code so that our fellow Cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Our code is free for all to use, worldwide. We don’t much care if you don’t approve of the software we write. We know that software can’t be destroyed and that a widely dispersed system can’t be shut down.
Cypherpunks deplore regulations on cryptography, for encryption is fundamentally a private act. The act of encryption, in fact, removes information from the public realm. Even laws against cryptography reach only so far as a nation’s border and the arm of its violence. Cryptography will ineluctably spread over the whole globe, and with it the anonymous transactions systems that it makes possible.
For privacy to be widespread it must be part of a social contract. People must come and together deploy these systems for the common good. Privacy only extends so far as the cooperation of one’s fellows in society. We the Cypherpunks seek your questions and your concerns and hope we may engage you so that we do not deceive ourselves. We will not, however, be moved out of our course because some may disagree with our goals.
The Cypherpunks are actively engaged in making the networks safer for privacy. Let us proceed together apace.
Onward.
9 March 1993