Cypherpunks & cypherwonks, we have all witnessed first hand a great
tension in our groups from the beginning, and I am sincerely upset by
this wretched animosity. Someone is bouncing my postings to
cypherpunks to the cypherwonks list anonymously, and it appears that
other cypherpunks have surreptitiously infiltrated the cypherwonk
list to promote pseudospoofing. Cypherpunks, I think we can get along
if we both continue to observe courtesy and honor, as your leader
E.Hughes requested some time ago in a message to both groups. This is
my own attempt to resolve some of the friction, and I hope you will
receive it in the best of spirits. I believe this will better aid
everyone on both lists in choosing which to contribute to, and to
avoid being publicly stigmatized or widely ignored for violations in
the charters.
Let me remind everyone on both lists the general purpose of both:
The cypherpunks are interested in identity camouflage techniques in
the name of `privacy', such as pseudospoofing. Members are highly
suspicious of any government structure or any identification scheme
whatsoever, to say the least, and are in general interested in
evading and subverting these mechanisms. They are seeking to develop
or press completely untraceable transactions into all realms of human
endeavor, *particularly* economic ones. Traditionally this has been
called `black marketeering' and `tax evasion' but the Cypherpunks
object to these terms.
Toward this goal, Cypherpunks are promoting Chaumian systems, in
mostly very secretive development projects. In fact, Mr.Hughes
recently met with Chaum in Dallas, I understand, so that both may
further progress in this area, including setting up a credit union
(credit unions are exempt from many banking restrictions the
cypherpunks consider oppressive and invasive of privacy). Finally,
the cypherpunks are also interested in infiltrating the media with
accounts of their movement, as long as they are wholly complimentary
and do not reveal the underlying libertarian extremist philosophy.
The catchwords are `privacy for the masses' and `the cryptographic
revolution.'
Cypherwonks find identity camouflage techniques such as
pseudoanonymity extremely dangerous, although we believe there is a
place for straight anonymity in certain forums, where lack of
identitification is not sensitive (such as outside of serious project
development and our own list). We are interested in developing new
structures that allow us to distinguish between fake and real
identities and screen out the the former, using such things such as
voluntary identity registration servers. We believe that all human
interaction is based to some degree on trust, and this frequently
involves the necessity of traceable transactions in most realms,
*particularly* economic ones. We think that `black marketeering' and
`tax evasion' are quite toxic for social harmony, and are quite
aghast to see these dangerous philosophies promoted in Cyberspace to
advocate `cryptoanarchy', or, simply, lawlessness.
Toward our goals, we have started our new list and are building up new
infrastructures for `Electronic Democracy' and other systems to help
ensure that trust is not betrayed in Cyberspace. We see Cyberspace as
an untamed wilderness that must be ridden of its more anarchic and
pathogenic features before anyone can begin living here. We are open
to everyone who is interested, no projects are kept secret from
anyone, and to the contrary we abhor any sort of conspirational
secrecy on the Internet, which we think is highly destructive to its
essential nature. We are working toward systems such as `Internet
mercantile protocols' that may not necessarily ensure total anonymity
in all transactions (it is not our major design criteria, contrary to
the cypherpunks). Finally, we are horrified to hear of a lie of any
sort, whether it be from a fake identity, from a leader, or in the
media, and we will even attempt to expose lies where we stumble on
them, sometimes tenaciously if necessary. Media exposure and credit
are not our main goals, but as this will inevitably appear, we will
make our intentions clear. We are more conservative than radicals;
we are not ourselves extremists, but moderates. The slogan is,
`Civilizing Cyberspace'.
I hope that Mr. Hughes or other cypherpunks do not object to the
summarization above of the purpose of his mailing list. He and Mr.
May have been sensitive in the past on topics that appear there and I
assume they will correct it if it has erroneously characterized the
official cypherpunk group agenda. Another statement on `privacy' can
be found in soda.berkeley.edu:/pub/cypherpunks/rants. The summary
above is based on my own extensive experience on the list and intense
research involving ~5000 messages I have traded with perhaps hundreds
of different cypherpunks and the leaders over approximately a year
now (I will present more documentation on the Cypherpunk agenda and
culture in the future). Those who question this characterization of
the directions of the Cypherpunks should read the message appended to
the end of this letter below.
* * *
I list the cypherpunks and cypherwonk group charters so that everyone
in both groups can clearly understand the purpose of both, and
perhaps in the future we can avoid conflicts due to a lack of
understandings in the charters. If these arise, I have the following
recommendations to all members of both groups.
If you see something you might consider `flamebait', or deliberately
provocative text that violates the charter, the most devastating
response is to completely *ignore* it both publicly and privately.
Imagine that the poster is advocating something completely depraved
like child molesting. You do not want to have any such association
with such a person, and perhaps the only response, if any, is a few
lines `your posts are not welcome here' or `please seek counseling'
sent in private email.
If you can be provoked into childish retributions in response to
childish provocations, it only unequivocally demonstrates your own
childishness. The agent provacateur measures success by his
perception of the depth of the damage he causes. Bouncing posts
(either to individuals or mailing lists), mailbombs, and screeching
obscenities in email are unjustified in any case. Your task is to
embody the courtesy and politeness that your attacker lacks to
effectively neutralize the attack. A vicious counterattack only leads
to further escalation, perhaps to very unpleasant circumstances to
all parties involved. This, to me, is the true spirit of humanity.
Shouts are not neutralized with other shouts but compassion or
*silence*.
I sincerely hope that members of both groups can help develop systems
that minimize the disruptions of the disreputable postings we both
have been tormented by, e.g. those that are anonymous, pseudonymous,
or pseudoanonymous. I think that we will all be far more productive
and far less paranoid when we work in a cyberspatial atmosphere that
by enforcing rules of courtesy, trust, and honor, basks in all.
* * *
Now, I have a few thoughts about `animosity' and `enmity' that I would
like to share with both groups in the holiday spirit. I think we all
recognize that the most noble human virtues are likewise the most
difficult to consistently practice, particularly in situations that
would seem to have plummeted into mudslinging in the gutter. But I
would advise everyone that enmity and hatred, like love, are in the
eyes of the beholder. Or, perhaps, rather, they are in the stomach,
and they will eat away like an ulcer until you realize that hatred is
never an appropriate human emotion, and enmity is inherently abnormal
and unnatural. If you have any enemies, something is remiss in the
world such that this venemous hatred developed. When we love or hate
others, we are reacting to the essential characteristics of our own
nature that are assuaged or attacked in others' presence.
Furthermore, everyone should recognize the sort of `cosmic link' that
you share with your enemies and loved ones. You are fated to be drawn
to them over you lifetime because of the resonance between you. It is
a natural law as inescapable as magnetism. I am reminded of the
utterly despondent situations of war and violence in the world, of
bitter racism and vicious nationalism that chain the peoples of the
world to their personal hells. These are all cycles that replay over
lifetimes unless broken by developing a strong aversion to strong
hatreds of any kind.
I remember when I was young, maybe somewhere around eight years old, I
had misbehaved for some unremembered reason and my parents made me go
to my room for several hours. I felt absolutely betrayed, disgusted,
and viciously revengeful. I can remember thinking that I would never
forget the appalling affront to my independence as long as I lived,
and hoping something evil would happen to my parents -- literally,
that they would die. I don't know where this poisonous anger came
from. I was quite an angry kid in my younger years, and I remember
episodes of my past with great shame and embarrassment now, and this
one stands out strongly among all. I have heard of similar anecdotes
from others, perhaps it is part of the underside of many people's
childhoods. I hope that the consequences of my hatred have been
erased just as my memory of the episode has faded despite my vow. But
I shall never forget what black evil my mind had been polluted with
for some hours. If the memory fades but the frustration persists, it
is poisonous hate.
I tell this story not so that you can quote me and ridicule me and
throw this back in my face to prove that I am a dangerously, mentally
unbalanced individual. I am telling you this to say that I am ashamed
of vicious hatred in any form, and that my own animosities rarely
last longer than a single letter. If they continue and persist, it is
because something in the world is seriously awry, that the source of
my frustration persists. When our attempts to resolve that which
troubles us meet impregnable brick walls, one's frustration mounts. If
anyone has been erecting these barbed wire fences in anyone's path, I
ask you to stop the bleeding and take them down.
In some ways, I have learned more over the last few months about
fellow human beings than I have learned in my whole lifetime. It
makes me nauseous to realize that I have ever made an enemy. But on
the other hand, I have recognized in my short existence as a human
being that many of the other passengers on Earth actually hate people
for their better accomplishments, and use the slightest excuse to
erect a barbed wire fence of enmity. They hate anyone who takes a
strong stand on any issue, particularly if it involves their own most
sacred vices. They will subject that person to the most scathing,
vicious ad hominem attacks conceivable to he and his circle of
friends and associates, even while they know that person is doing
nothing but holding a mirror to their own deceptions and hypocrisies.
But we cannot escape our own vices in the presence of others. Only
sociopaths do not ever constructively criticize or listen to each
other. And every extent and manifestation of social stigma is due a
true sociopath by a society with any integrity.
One of the consequences of hatred is `demonizing' someone, which Mr.
T.C.May has advised against on numerous occasions, and his words drip
with profundity. To all those who demonize anyone (including
myself), I ask-- is it frustration or enmity? The difference is that
if what you are railing against was resolved, and a window or doorway
suddenly appeared in the brick wall, you would be elated and
delighted if you were satirizing or constructively criticizing
someone, and you would immediately forgive them. But if what you have
is poisonous enmity, you would like to see this person die a cruel
death no matter what switch in fortune or rays of light the future
brings. ``They cannot ever be forgiven.'' This is hatred. And it
burns like some insidious virus invading the flesh; it is fed by the
creep of corruption and destruction. It replicates, it propagates, it
reaches critical mass, it inevitably explodes like a nuclear bomb.
Think about that a moment. Do you really want to see your enemies die?
Imagine that some catastrophic misfortune visited your most hated
enemy, that he *did* die a cruel death. Would you be intensely sorry
or elated? Imagine that your enemies die the death of Marie
Antoinette, Joan of Arc or Jesus Christ. Their grisly fates were the
logical conclusion of the guillotine, fires, and spikes of your
hatred. When your enemy *does* die a grisly death, beware of public
backlash against the beheadings, stake-burnings, or crucifixions you
watched, sanctioned, or championed.
Be careful that your Movement or Revolution is inherently moral,
controlled, and restrained, that thieves, criminals, psychopaths, and
traitors are not hiding within it, that you are not warping the
ideals you claim to embrace, that your excesses are not sowing the
seeds of your own destruction, and that your own head is secure from
the bloody blade. He who lives by the Guillotine will die by it.
Sometimes, in retrospect, silence is seen as complicity. Sometimes,
the riotous mob turns to feed on itself. Sometimes, when the prey
dies, the predators become the hunted.
* * *
In the true spirit of Christmas, I would like to `unilaterally'
forgive anyone and everyone who has attacked me in the past months.
I feel no bitterness over your 4 or 5 letters to my postmaster, your
massive sendsys and mail bombs, your harassment of those in the
cypherwonks group, your lies, your treacheries, your betrayals, your
treasons against friends, followers, and bystanders, and enemies
alike.
But forgiveness is futile unless the feelings of remorse are mutual
and not unilateral. I ask others to forgive me for whatever ways I
have truly wronged you, and you to cease and apologize for whatever ways you
have wronged me (I have apologized to all cypherpunks in my posting,
Embarassment, Humiliation, Shame, and an Apology). I ask you to
distinguish between a vicious, spiteful attack and a message that
actually hides the concern, `I am doing absolutely everything
conceivable to prevent you from walking off a cliff, and if that
makes me your enemy for doing so, so be it, because, as painful as my
words and actions are for both of us, to me your life is more
valuable than our friendship. To me your life *is* our friendship.'
I ask all the Cypherpunks and Cypherwonks to find virtue in this
tumultuous world we call home, to find some kind of moderation,
sensibility, and virtue where it is desperately needed. I pray that
we will all help bring not the world's darkness, but its light, to
Cyberspace.
Following is a letter from an eminent, avuncular cypherpunk, which
helped me to release some of my own pent up frustration that has been
bubbling and churning for many weeks now. This was written in
response to my posting to the Cypherpunks, `Humility, Embarrassment,
Shame, and an Apology.'
Merry Christmas
Happy Holidays
Peace on Earth
Good Will Toward Men
L.Detweiler
===cut=here===
To: L.Detweiler <ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Subject: Re: Embarrassment, Humiliation, Shame, and an Apology
>Above all, please do not
>construe my heartfelt sincerity as ... satire.
It _is_ difficult.
What it does sounds like ... is the result of brainwashing. I have no
interest at all in a thoughtless follower, and whatever faults your
postings exhibited, lack of reconceptualization was not among them.
Mind you, I thought most of those rethinkings were incorrect, yet I
never faulted you for being uncreative.
Democracy is the best way yet discovered for controlling centralized
power, yet it is my opinion that the way to proceed is to eliminate
the central powers and replace them with distributed powers.
Therefore I disagree that the best goal is the extension of democracy
into every realm. In deciding what mix of products an economy makes,
for example, only dollar-votes make sense; to democratize production
by one-person/one-vote would lead to a command economy similar to the
ex-Soviet Union.
I consider there to be an underexplored realm of distinctions between
what systems are only amenable to centralized power (in which we
choose democracy) and what systems may support distributed power (in
which we may choose markets or other systems). You are interested in
democracy; perhaps you could think about what systems still require
centralization, and why.
>I think that ... tentacle S.Boxx has demonstrated the damage that
>can be done with pseudoanonymity. He ought to be [viciously,
>violently punished] ...
If one can avoid the thought of violence in the pit of one's despair,
then one is well on the way to a peacable nature.
Whatever the faults the postings of S. Boxx may have had, the physical
body behind the pseudonym is in no way deserving of violence.
