December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Information Warfare
by Peter Hendrickson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The cypherpunks list has been under "attack" for some time. How have we managed it? Very poorly in my view. Some people have dismissed the idea that rogue governmental elements are behind some of our problems. Yet, there is no reason to rule out this hypothesis. The government has not always behaved well with regards to its perceived enemies in the last few decades. The FBI seems to infiltrate everything - even churches!. This is well documented. The CIA has worked hard on disrupting various political movements of which it did not approve using provocateurs and other conspiratorial dirty tricks. (I believe the FBI has, too, but I do not recall any documentation offhand.) We know that "Information Warfare" is the big thing in the defense establishment right now. It's all over their web pages. We see articles from the Kennedy School which seem to compare free speech with disease. Etc. Etc. We also believe that the things the Cypherpunks are interested in are on the radar screen. Maybe the Cypherpunks are, too. Is it unreasonable to ask whether some people are getting funding to experiment with disrupting "groups" like the Cypherpunks? I can easily picture people inventing all sorts of important sounding words like "psy-op" for what is little more than rudeness. Whatever the cause of the disruptions, the solutions are the same. Most of the proposals I've been hearing have to do with controlling the behavior of other cypherpunks and creating more structure. This is a mistake. It's clear that even the definitions of "spam" and "flame" are hard to nail down. The next idea will be to moderate on the basis of content. How will we decide what is content? Clearly that's much too important a question to leave to just one person. What we need is a committee to decide! What's next? Robert's Rules of Order? All of this detracts from the work we have before us. If you've ever been involved with a non-profit organization, you will know that enormous energy is spent on internal political scheming. That's a boring waste of time. Let's go down a better path. Let's think about the best way for each cypherpunk to manage disruptions. Please consider these suggestions: 1. Filter noise. I filter based on origin. If a kill file doesn't work, use a positive filter to read messages only from people who are worthwhile. It has been suggested that this doesn't work because some people post garbage, but also occasionally post something good. There's gold in the ocean, too. Why don't we retrieve it? If you don't want to manage a filter yourself, find somebody to do it for you. A number of people offer filtering services. Remember that in an open forum, noise increases with signal. The more worthwhile and interesting threads are on the list, the more worthless postings we are going to see, particlarly when people are consciously disruptive. 2. Post signal. Filters are useless when there is no signal. Signal comes from cypherpunks. You are a cypherpunk. 3. Birds of a feather flock together. When you respond to somebody, you mingle your on-line identity with theirs. Fly with the eagles. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

1 0

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<* The mechanics of the announcement troubled me greatly. To be blunt, I was <seething with anger. I was mightily annoyed to read that John had made a <decision to appoint Sandy as his Moderator, with no discussion on the list. <I don't know if Eric Hughes and Hugh Daniel were asked their opinions, but <I certainly know I was not. I feel that as one of the two or three <founders, depending on how one is counting, and as a frequent contributor <to the list since its inception, and so on, I (and others) should at least <have been told of this plan. Better yet, have the plans discussed on the <list, as some good ideas may have been generated. hi timmy, a word to the wise: it amuses me that whenever I referred to a cypherpunk "community" my eyebrows were flamed off, by people who claimed there was no such thing. a community has certain properties, many of which I believe the cypherpunks "crowd" has always lacked. one aspect of the "crowd" that is lacking is LEADERSHIP. I have pointed this out again and again. the cpunks believe that leadership is no longer relevant in a digital society, somehow. the list is in the shape it is in because of POOR LEADERSHIP.. neither you nor EH care about what LEADERSHIP entails, or wish to exert the sacrifices that it requires. hence, you have, and have always had, a LEADERSHIP VACUUM. and now you are "mightily annoyed", "pissed off" etc. that as a "founder" you were not consulted? you weren't consulted because you weren't a leader in the true sense of the word. are you in or out? imho leadership does not merely entail writing posts and having a completely laissaiz fair attitude about every single issue under the sun, particularly those of dear importance to the list, such as how to deal with crappy signal to noise ratios, intentional provocateurs, people who seem to have ulterior agendas, etc. I think it is highly amusing for you to get a lesson about how your views about "anarchy" really work out. what does this anarchy thing mean, anyway? is someone else taking over the list your idea of what is represented by anarchy? imho anarchy is a power vacuum in which the events which have transpired, and that you perceive as unpalatable to say the least, are inevitable. <I'll have more to say about my problems with how things were handled. <Frankly, it smacked of the same kind of fait accompli decision John made <with the unsubscribing of Vulis. While John had (and has) every legal right <to do with his property as he wished, the effect was very negative. First, <Vulis found other ways to post (duh). Second, the list was consumed with <flames about this, many from Vulis, and many from others. Third, <journalists (who love sizzle over substance any day of the week) lept into <the fray with articles which gave Vulis the publicity he craved. Fourth, it <sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the Cypherpunks have found <it necessary to abandon their anarchic ways." "enemies of liberty"? hee, hee. anarchy was not a practical way of running the list, and never has been, and now that the REALITY of the situation is PROVING this to you in an inescapable existence proof, you find it impossible to confront the obvious message. timmy, a little tip: anarchy, as you seem to conceive it, doesn't scale well, and both usenet and the cypherpunks list are eminent evidence of this. <(I'm well aware of the issues with pests like Vulis, who seek to destroy <virtual communities like ours. But the solution John used did not work, and <generated more crap. As you all should know, it was John himself who coined <the wonderful saying, "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes <around it." A delicious irony.) which should encourage people to understand that there is a subtle difference between censorship and moderation.. or does the distinction elude you? is there a difference in your opinion? you have plenty of financial resources to start a mailing list of your own, what makes you think it would be any more orderly than the one that is being run here? in fact, do you understand how "anarchy" and "order" are mutually exclusive, now that your own reality is shouting it to you? <* The proper solution to bad speech is more speech, not censorship. ah, so everyone should post 5 messages to the list, instead of 1, and those that are quite should post 3. quite an elegant solution. do you see how the silly rhetoric fails to hold up in reality? when will you get a clue about where your own views are really leading you? <* OK, even given that John had decided to censor "his" list, what about his <choice of Sandy Sandfort as the censor? "moderator"-- does the word mean anything to you? <(I count Sandy as a friend, but I'm just being honest here. Sandy is just <not a "Peter Neumann" (moderator of the "RISKS" list). you were free to propose another moderator. moderation is hard work. it takes a lot of time. who volunteered other than sandy? <* I would have had no problem had John announced that he was creating a new <list, the "Good Stuff" list, with Sandy has his Chooser of Good Stuff. <After all, both Eric Blossom and Ray Arachelian already offer just such <lists, and more would not hurt. < <But by making the _main list_ the censored one, this skewed things <considerably. anyone is free to subscribe to any list they choose, including the unfiltered one. how is the reality different than that which you write? are you suggesting that people are too lazy to make a coherent choose on their own? who are you to argue with what everyone themself chooses? <* The decision to "moderate" (censor) the Cypherpunks list is powerful <ammunition to give to our opponents, and Vulis is certainly gleeful that <his fondest wishes have been realized. And it won't work. People are <consuming even more bandwidth arguing the merits of John's decision, the <traffic is presumably being slowed down by the need for Sandy to wade <through the traffic and stamp "Approved" or "Rejected" on what he glances <at, and people are "testing the limits" of what they can say and what they <can't say. what's a better solution, in your opinion, besides ignoring it all and pretending there is no problem? <In any case, my several years with the list have taken a huge amount of my <time. Given the way this whole thing was handled, and the way the list is <degenerating even further, it looks like it's good that I'm moving on to <other things. ah, quite convenient excuse to bail out when no elegant solution seems possible. blame all the problems on faux-reasons rather than an opportunity for soul-searching. <- the decision to censor the list was made without any discussion on the <list, without any discussion with at least some of the longterm core <contributors, and was presented as a "fait accompli." by their own construction, all insisted that everyone be treated identically on the list, and that no such distinction be made about "longterm core contributors" but thanks for showing up and clarifying your position, timmy. what a tragedy not to routinely see your smiling face here. I for one have "taps" playing on my computer whenever I read the list as a suitable memorial to your past greatness. viva la cypherpunks!

1 0

Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy]
by Peter Hendrickson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:12 PM 2/3/1997, Lucky Green wrote: >At 12:28 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >>At 11:38 AM 2/3/1997, Lucky Green wrote: >>> I am well aware of the name recognition and reputation capital associated >>> with CP, still I believe it best to *kill the list*. >> If you don't like the list, why not unsubscribe? > That won't solve the problem. The list has become counterproductive. It is > impossible for other lists to provide a real forum for the discussion of > the topics that this list used to be about while CP still exists. At the > same time, CP has long stopped providing such a forum. CP is draining > energy from its subscribers and the cause. Kill it! Kill it now! Who should do what to comply with your proposal? Should John shut down the list? Are you asking everybody to unsubscribe? I don't think "killing the list" is an option for you or anybody else. The List transcends all domains. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

1 0

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My main complaints about the `filtering' service forced upon the list readership are that: 1. It was done to the main list! If cypherpunks were left unchanged, and a `cypherpunks-edited' were created I wouldn't have a problem, it would be just another filtered list. However there are already several filtered lists, so the usefulness of this is limited anyway. Merely including details of these filtered lists in the sign on message, and posting a reminder every few weeks would suffice. I and apparently, most others didn't choose to subscribe to a filtering service. I object to this choice being over-ridden. OK, so I can re-subscribe to cypherpunks (cypherpunks-unedited), but many won't bother. (Actually I subscribe to cypherpunks-flames and cypherpunks, as the most efficient way of receiving all messages, and still being able to see the moderation results). 2. The impetus for moderating the main list seems to be as a result of a few posts by Dimitri. Really, if this is all it takes to destroy an unmoderated list, I've got to laugh at cypherpunks collectively. Why is it such a big deal to press the `n' key, if you don't like what Dimitri, or anyone else, has to say? If your time is too valuable to press `n' keys, what is wrong with subscribing to the existing filtered lists? Or with setting up a kill-file? Or maybe generating a bit of signal yourself? 3. It is even more funny that in my opinion Dimitri purposefully set out to raise the issue of censorship (after his own partial censorship), and has succeeded to this extent. The whole thing is just allowing yourself to be manipulated by his transparent efforts. 4. There is already a moderated forum for discussion of cypherpunks issues: cryptography(a)c2.net, why do we need another one? My vote is for renaming: `cypherpunks-unedited' -> `cypherpunks' and `cypherpunks' -> `cypherpunks-edited' and for moving all those still on the edited list to the unedited list. Post a note advertising the availability of a new filtering service called `cypherpunks-edited(a)toad.com', along with the references to the other competing filtering services. If at the end of the trial forced moderation period, John Gilmore doesn't have the bandwidth on toad.com to support all of `cypherpunks', `cypherpunks-edited' and `cypherpunks-flames', I suggest that a new home is found for `cypherpunks'. Or perhaps Sandy as proponent of his filtering service, would be able to find a home for `sandys-filtered-cypherpunks' service, as with the other filtering services. Personally, I am not in the habit of flaming people, or using the word `fuck', in general discussion, but I find the way this `filtering service' was foisted on the main list highly objectionable. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

3 2

Re: Filling Power Vacuums
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

timmy writes: <It's about "power grabs." < <You see, in any anarchic situation, where reliance on self-control and <self-filtering is emphasized, there is always a _temptation_ for some to <"fill the power vacuum" and grab power. ah, so what's the solution? <I learned in my years at Intel how easy it was to start bossing people <around, and as I hired engineers and scientists, I built up quite a little <empire. But I didn't like what it was doing to me, as it distanced me from <the technology and also brought out "control freak" tendencies....I started <worrying about how my people were using their time ("my" time), and I <increasingly applied my own notions of what they should talk about and what <were suitable topics for laboratory chatter. In other words, I became a <censor. (Not a government censor, but a censor in the broader definition <I've already cited.) timmy, I encourage you to understand that leadership is not inherently evil. there are enlightened ways to lead people that leave the group better as a whole. you just fell into the trap of "negative leadership", the dark side of the force as you write. imho, however, there is a light side of the force that still involves leadership. <(I accept the role hierarchies play in corporations. They can't be built <with just people like me. They need leaders, controllers, power freaks, <etc. oops, a little bit of a glaring logical error there imho. leadership is not equivalent to a hierarchy imho. admittedly, it often translates that way. But a virtual community like the Cypherpunks group is not such a <heirarchical organization, and it needs few rules, leaders, etc. "We don't <need no steenking leaders.") yes, if you only want to be an ineffectual debate society with no significant power whatseover. <As this relates to Cypherpunks, I have steadfastly refused to consider any <"management role," so to speak, in how the list is run, the formal <policies, etc. I'm not saying there has been a call for management (though <Detweiler used to rail against us for not having a management heirarchy, <for not having rules and democratic procedures for "making decisions"), <just that the power vacuum in anarchies such as ours is often an open <invitation for someone to step in and "provide structure and guidance." I <resisted any thoughts of doing this, and argued against this sort of thing <whenever the topic came up in conversation. I chose to lead only by the <posts I wrote and the ideas I worked on. heh. perhaps "leadership" involves more than posting. perhaps there is a way to have "leadership" without hierarchy. perhaps "leadership" is not equivalent to "management". perhaps sometimes you win by losing, and lose by winning. perhaps water is so powerful because it is lower than all that which it flows around. <Now, of course, the message is being sent that Sandy Sandfort is in some <sense the de facto leader, being that he determines what traffic goes out <to the main list and what traffic gets bounced into the flames list. In <fact, I'll make a prediction: The media will see that he is the chief <censor and arbiter of worthiness and will increasingly contact him for the <Official Point of View on various items they are interested in. timmy, why are you so upset about the media angle? why do you give the slightest damn what the media thinks? answer: because you want to be the one they call when they want to know what the cypherpunks think. you want them to pay attention to the cypherpunks. in short, you would like to have the glamor of a leader, without any of the responsibility. <Namely, I realize that I don't want the karmic burdens of power myself, <preferring to lead only by the example I set and the ideas I generate. This <is why "market anarchies" (books, music, ideas, all things where "no ruler" <exists) appeal to me so much. I think you would be surprise at the realization that "leaders" exist in those so-called "anarchies" > And since I don't wish to assume the mantle <of leadership, hmmmmmmmmmmmm, it seems to me that reliquishing that burden might entail having decisions made that you do not agree with. <I am resentful and suspicious of people who _do_ step into the <"power vacuum" to lead and control. <Now I grant you that Sandy's form of leadership and control is relatively apparently in your brain, "lead" == "control" <Yes, I'm seething. Sandy is right about that. I saw a group I helped create <and spent thousands of hours on, writing articles and developing ideas <choose--by fiat from the owner of the machine the list was being sent out <from--to embrace the dark side, the control freak side. In the name of <"comity," Sandy's term for the bonhomie he thinks he can cultivate, we lose <our ideological purity. hee, hee. don't worry timmy, you'll feel better later after you've forgotten that there was some deep lesson in all this.

1 0

now we know why it was called altavista!
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

... Cylink (CYLK) announced today that the government has approved export of the company's security products containing strong encryption. Likewise, Digital Equipment (DEC) has also won approval and plans to begin shipments of encryption-enabled networking and system software immediately. A third company, Trusted Information Systems, effectively had approval before January 1 because of its existing key recovery technology. ... http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,7575,00.html

1 0

concerning Ben Franklin
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I was reading one of the posts in the thread reguarding sone stolen object in Miami, the one reffering to the locks of the boxes, and it got me thinking. Ben Franklin was a revolutionary, scientist, inventor, publisher, statesman, and bookburner (according to F451). Perhaps he should be considered to be a cypherpunk, not that he necessarily knew anything about crypto, but because he was interested in many of the same ideals. It is my belief that were he alive today, he would be on this list. If the work of fiction referred to above, and in another recent post, is accurate in its reference to Franklin, then he would seem to have had the same solution to net pollution, burn it. Rather than considering Ben Franklin the first fireman, I would like to think of him as an early breed of cypherpunk. By this I consider cypherpunk to be interested in the subject, and its outcome, and a cryptographer to be just one faction of cypherpunk. Merely my opinion. Does anyone know whether or not Mr. Franklin may have played with code as well? All of my sources were assimilated into my understanding of the man several years ago, and at the time crypto was less in the public eye than it is now.

1 0

[PKP] Info please!
by winsock＠rigel.cyberpass.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Debauchery L[ethargic] Vilus K[unt]OTM likes to be the man in the middle, getting it both up the ass and in his mouth. ,/ \, ((__,-"""-,__)) `--)~ ~(--` .-'( )`-, Debauchery L[ethargic] Vilus K[unt]OTM `~~`d\ /b`~~` | | (6___6) `---`

1 0

Re: Editted Edupage
by winsock＠rigel.cyberpass.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

When Dimitri L[eisuresuit] Vulis K[arcinogen] Of The Month's mother gave birth to him after fucking with a bunch of sailors, she didn't know who the father was but decided to tell him that he was a Russian as the Russian sailor was the one who satisfied her the most. _ I I I~I I~I __ _ I~I _ . \ \ I_I/I-II-II \~~\' `-'`-'~I \_ ) ~\_ /~~ ) Dimitri L[eisuresuit] Vulis K[arcinogen] Of The Month \_ Y )' \ ^ / |~ ~| =====

1 0

now we know why it was called altavista!
by Huge Cajones Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

... Cylink (CYLK) announced today that the government has approved export of the company's security products containing strong encryption. Likewise, Digital Equipment (DEC) has also won approval and plans to begin shipments of encryption-enabled networking and system software immediately. A third company, Trusted Information Systems, effectively had approval before January 1 because of its existing key recovery technology. ... http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,7575,00.html

1 0