原文出处：https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html，译文出处：https://www.8btc.com/article/272396
隐私是电子时代开放型社会的必要条件。隐私不是秘密。某人不想让全世界知道某事，这是隐私；某人不想让任何人知道某事，这才是秘密。隐私是一种把自己选择性地展现给世界的权力。
如果双方有了某种交易，则双方都有对于互动的记忆。每一方都可以谈论自己对互动是怎样记忆的。这样的谈论，世上有谁能够阻止呢？诚然，一个社会可以通过法律禁止谈论，但是言论自由是开放型社会的基石，其重要程度甚至超过了隐私。我们都在争取不限制任何种类的言论。
假设有一个论坛，很多团体都在一起议论，则每个人都可以对其他所有人说话，将有关个人，有关其他团体的知识聚合起来。电子通讯的力量，让这种群体话语成为可能，而且这种交流也不可能仅仅因为某些人的意愿就消失无踪。
既然我们渴望拥有隐私，那就必须确保交易各方都只知道对交易来说必不可少的信息。既然任何信息都可能被人们谈论到，那就必须确保披露的信息尽可能少。
在大多数情况下，个人身份的披露并不重要。比如我在一家商店买杂志，把钱交给店员，店员并不需要知道我是谁。我请求电子邮件服务的提供者收发邮件，提供者也不需要知道我对谁说话，我在说什么，别人对我说什么；提供者只需要知道如何把信息传给收件人，以及我欠他们多少服务费。但是，一旦我的身份被交易的潜在机制暴露，我的隐私就丧失了。我再也不能有选择性地暴露自己，而必须始终暴露自己。
因此，开放型社会中的隐私需要各种匿名的交易系统。迄今为止，社会中首要的系统还是现金（译注：这篇文章写在1993年。）匿名系统使个人能够在有意愿的时候，而且只在有意愿的时候暴露自己身份；这就是隐私的核心意义。
开放型社会的隐私还需要密码学的参与。在我开口说话之时，我必定只希望某些特定的目标听众听见。一旦我的言语让全世界听到，我也就没有隐私可言了。加密意味着对隐私的渴望；加密使用的密码越弱，则意味着对隐私的渴望越小。此外，如果系统默认为匿名，那么为了争民自己的身份，则需要密码签名。
我们不能指望政府、企业或者其他面目不清的大型组织，将隐私当作一种恩典赏赐给我们。了解我们的隐私对他们有利。要阻止他们这样做，就要与信息的真实面貌作斗争。
信息不只是想要自由，它渴望自由。信息会一直扩展，占据一切可用的存储空间。“信息”是“谣言”的表弟。但它年纪更小，力气更大；其传播的脚步比“谣言”更敏捷、注视着人们视线比“谣言”更广阔；它知道得更多，但懂得更少。
我们若是想要拥有隐私，就必须保护自身的隐私。我们必须团结起来，创造允许匿名交易发生的交易系统。千百年来，人们一直在用耳语、黑市、信封、密室、秘密握手、信使等等手段捍卫自己的隐私。过去的技术还不能实现高度隐私，而电子技术却有望使其成为现实。
我们密码朋克将致力于建设匿名系统。我们正在使用密码学、匿名邮件转发系统、数字签名和电子货币来保卫隐私。
密码朋克将为此撰写代码。我们知道，如果人们想要捍卫隐私，就必须有人制作能够实现隐私保护的软件；我们还知道，除非我们行动起来，否则我们就不能捍卫隐私。我们会公开一切代码，这样，我们的密码朋克同志们才能够用它练习，用它做事情。我们的代码对全世界公开，任何人都可以利用。
若是你不赞成我们创造的软件，我们也不会介意。我们知道，软件是不能销毁的，广泛分布的系统也不可能关停。
密码朋克们谴责针对密码学的监管，因为加密行为从基础上说是一种隐私行为。加密行为实际上把某些信息从公众领域移除掉了。那些禁止密码的法律，其监管范围也只能达到法律的暴力臂膀能够涉及的国家边界。密码必将遍布全球，随着密码的普及，匿名交易系统也将变成可能，实现全球普及。
隐私要想普遍化，必须成为社会契约的一部分。大众必须联合起来，为了大家的共同利益，合力部署这些系统。密码朋克将关注你的问题，关切你的关切的焦点，希望你能参与进来，这样我们的努力就不会脱离受众，我们的行为也不会自欺欺人。不过，我们不会仅仅因为有些人可能不同意我们的目标，就因此停止我们的进程。
密码朋克在积极参与建设确保隐私的网络，让网络更加安全。让我们一起飞速进步——
前进不息！
埃里克·修斯（hughes@soda.berkeley.edu）
写于1993年3月9日
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.
Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>
9 March 1993
.
.