-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim writes:
Indeed, some people here have been calling themselves by various names ("CypherGeek," "Crypto Rebel," etc.) for a long time. Personally, I despise the terms "geek," "dweeb," and "nerd," and think anyone who calls themselves by these insults is not "reclaiming and deconstructing the labels of the oppressor class," as the slogan goes, but is merely insulting themselves. Blacks who call themselves "niggers," homosexuals who call themselves "queers," and computer programmers who call themselves "geeks" and "dorks" are all playing the same game.
I fail to see how you can write this, and then claim it's OK to call yourself a 'punk'.
A better approach is for the "conservatives" who want a "more conservative" name to simply do what I suggested: form a new group and name it what they like. They wouldn't have to quit this list, they would just be able to cleanly recruit for their new list.
Seems simple to me. And honest. And less devisive than trying to change the name of a group with a long history (by modern standards) and with several well-known achievements.
Who is trying to be dishonest, and what are they trying to be dishonest about? I'm really confused by this. Tim, I don't want to take your toy away, or minimize the acheivements of the cypherpunks (among whom I somewhat presumptively include myself). OK. Let's NOT drop the term 'cypherpunk'. However, I do think we need to have available another term for 'people with our interests' if we're going to have maximal effectiveness. What follows is my original followup, written last night. - --------------------------------------------------------------- I've gotten a number of responses to my post 'Cypherpunk considered harmful." It's pretty clear that a lot of people did not really understand what I was getting at. This is my fault. I'll try to clarify. What is the situation on the ground, here in mid September 1995? It's utterly clear that the US and other governments, are dead set against the widespread use of strong, unencumbered crypto. 'They' are using many different (and weak) pretexts to delay or prevent it's incorporation into commercial software. If there is a hidden state agenda, 'our' belief is it is that the state wishes to retain it's current ability to spy unseen on the citizenry, wiretapping with or without warrents, and examine stored information without the cooperation of the owner. The general 'cypherpunk viewpoint', if I may generalize, is diametrically opposite: It's not really a hidden agenda, since frequent rants make it pretty clear. Since we're not a unified command and control system like the state, different cypherpunks have different goals, but I hazard that most would agree with: 'Strong, uencumbered cryptography is an empowerment tool for the electronic age; it strengthens the individual in relation to the state, allowing him (or her) to communicate privately, and store his data as securely as if it resided in his own head. The widespread use of strong cryptography will lead to social changes that we regard as desirable.' If you accept this arguably paranoid vision of our situation, then it's clear that we are in a battle for the hearts and minds of the people: The State wants to convince people that their safety and prosperity lies in trusting Big Brother to watch over and take care of them, and nothing but danger lies outside of BB's line of sight. The cypherpunks take a much more libertarian viewpoint; that the state is already too strong and intrusive, and that cryptography will not only allow us to engage in commerce and protect ourselves against crime, it will also allow us to act outside of improper state control. But time is running out. All the state has to do is convince people that strong unescrowed encryption is needed only by criminals - if you trust the state, there is no reason to object to it being able to listen in - after all, all laws are reasonable, and the state won't listen in without a warrant. 'We' have a harder task. We need to convince people that they need encryption - it will protect us against criminals, snoops, and hackers, and the state's proposals will not do this. It's a much more subtle thesis, without the easy emotional hooks that can be exploited by the state to promote it's position. I don't think we can turn people into libertarians, and then get them to adopt cryptography to protect themselves from the statists. At least, not enough people to count in the short term, and the short term is where we need to focus at the moment. I *do* think we can persuade people that they need cryptography to protect themselves against criminals, and that the governments proposed standards for key length limits and key escrow will make the crypto so weak and insecure that it will cause more crime than it will prevent. That's a critical point - that the individual can, without difficulty, use cryptography to protect him or herself against criminals more effectively than he could by relying on the state. The memes we want to propagate are 1. "I need strong unescrowed cryptography to protect myself against criminals." If we can convince a large portion of the population of this (and we have truth on our side), we'll be well on our way. 2. "The government's initiatives on encryption, while they may be well-intentioned, are worse than useless, and will endanger me and my loved ones." If we can get this through the public's collective head as well, we'll have won the battle. This goal is where the 'cypherpunk considered harmful' title comes from. I want to propagate these ideas. If I go up to an average person and tell them "The State is working to ensure that it can spy on your every communication, and can't be trusted to follow it's own rules for doing so. Use cryptography to help promote cryptoanarchy!", he will usually dismiss me as a nutcase. If I say "Criminals and hackers can tap your internet communications, defraud your cell phone account, eavesdrop on your calls, impersonate you, steal your credit card numbers, and spy on your business secrets. I can tell you how you can easily prevent this", then he is interested, and wants to know more. Terms like 'cypherpunk' and 'cryptoanarchy' tend to pigeonhole us as nutcases for many people, and are a barrier to getting our ideas across. I'm not saying this pigeonholing is correct - in fact I despise people who judge a book by it's cover, but so many people DO make such snap judgements that we need to take this into account when talking to the general public. For those who have responded, *I* do not have a problem with the term cypherpunk. However, I know that there are many people who do, people we want on our side. I propose that in communicating with the cryptographic laity, we should be emphasizing the anti-crime aspects of crypto, as well as it's enabling impact on commerce and the American software industry. We'll get a lot more converts with this approach than we would by emphasizing the political aspects of cypherpunk, no matter how important we think they are. Think about it. Which future would you rather see: 1. Lots of people demanding strong unescrowed crypto for what you consider rather peripheral and politically unaware reasons, which you have educated them in. 2. Unescrowed crypto banned, with those who promote considered aiders and abeters of the four horsemen, (but boy are they ideologically pure!). Peter Trei I probably won't see any responses till Monday. I'm going for a weekend at a resort on Lake Winnipesaukee. If you need me, I'll be in the hot tub. :-) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMFmmK1QxhKXe9s8VAQE+tgP+NcKdGvBeJpa8AHGr/RhKCHudZP2qmRNP J699UCCvN006ywIjurjuis48VPj26uxBkcRbeuzNxGlKmZqXIkS0vEcFjrrZhBsK V9dLFFGTZ6JG3nK++mleW1wQB/F0azXXvXKJWa6R+Tnj1oo2ADUxGNQMs9IVmgR3 zsyK3fej+IQ= =YqDH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Peter Trei Senior Software Engineer Purveyor Development Team Process Software Corporation http://www.process.com trei@process.com