- EH & TCM statements on pseudospoofing - hypocrisies and the religion of pseudospoofing - the second pseudospoofing survey - a tale of two `cypherpunks' (Or: The Postmaster, The Magicians, and the Critic) EH & TCM statements on pseudospoofing --
From `someone':
There is no conspiracy. EH and TCM have publicly stated several times that they have never "pseudospoofed." Why would they go to such lengths just to create an elaborate hoax and attempt to drive you crazy? There's no conceivable reason. It's easily confirmed that there are hundreds of real, unique individual people on the cypherpunks list. You see their email addresses. This is crazy. I just don't see your point. You are exhibiting MAJOR paranoia symptoms. Why do this to yourself?
I missed the public statements by EH and TCM that `they have never `pseudospoofed'', despite my various requests, both public and private, over the past few weeks -- could someone email those to me? Mr. May told me he `had experimented' with the technique (I only say this because I think it is public knowledge at this point). I have seen some circuitous statements (quoted in the RISKS article) that pseudonyms are a fact of life in cyberspace, and `the situations you despise will occur.' None of these are very authoritative, IMHO. All the statements I have seen are far from conclusive, and they have consistently stonewalled and evaded me in private mail. (That is the *only* reason I have continued to escalate my rhetoric.) If they answered my simple questions, and been straightforward about their practices, I would have no objections, and I would have `gone away' a long time ago. hypocrisies and the religion of pseudospoofing -- One of the things I don't understand about this pseudospoofing religion thing -- if it is the cypherpunk religion, as hundreds of email messages have convinced me it is, why are so many cypherpunks so resistant to revealing their personal involvement? Isn't religion supposed to uplifting, something you can be proud of, something you can announce to the world? Why is there so much secrecy? You don't think there's anything wrong or criminal or shameful about what you're doing, do you? I suppose all the secrecy would be useful in promoting a *conspiracy*, but what's the use in that? Isn't the whole idea that you are trying to promote all these neat techniques to the whole world, so that everyone can use them? (Oh, that's that annoying egalitarian idea-- sorry, of course you have flamed that searingly.) I always thought that cypherpunks were against things like secret conspiracies and corruption. Or maybe they only are against it when a *government* is engaged in it. Private practice, so to speak, is entirely wholesome, commendable, useful, and desirable? I suppose that the more that people knew about widespead pseudospoofing, the less susceptible to it they would become, so the usefulness of the technique would be diminished. (the `robbing the treasury' principle I wrote about earlier --eventually it becomes bare!). Or, some people have these nagging taboos against it. For example, a net legend John Palmer supposedly is famous for it. Also, some people might just leave anywhere where the pseudospoofing was really prevalent. That would be unpleasant for anyone who wanted to practice it routinely on unsuspecting and unwilling participants. I suppose this secret conspiracy approach does fit in with some of the Extropian and cryptoanarchist ideas also, about elevating the idea of private companies, tax evasion, and black marketeering to the point of the complete dissolution of governments, etc. I asked a top Extropian leader about their official opinion on pseudospoofing -- neutral, pro, con, or undecided. He was quite upset by my question and refused to answer it, and cc:ed his response to all the other prominent leaders in the group. (I guess this could tie in with a letter by H.Finney to me saying that one of the Extropian leaders could help verify the independent existence of J.Dinkelacker.) I appreciate all the cypherpunks outlining their philosophies in so many forums. It helps me to understand what you all are about. For example, I just started posting to a list on Internet Mercantile Protocols, and was quite surprised to find a group of cypherpunks already there, strongly promoting things like completely untraceable cash and total anonymity (and criticizing all alternatives as Orwellian). In fact, one of them had written one of the most *beautiful* classic cypherpunk essays in favor of the Joy of Pseudospoofing (`tapping into new areas of the human psyche' or a `truer, more free debate', or something like that.) If anyone else knows of other cypherpunks posting to various Internet development project lists, esp. those related to digital cash or identification protocols, I would be interested in hearing from you. Have they generally been polite? Do they look at all sides of the issues? What do they have to say about identity protocols? Really, though, the bottom line is that anyone doesn't like to talk about their religion of pseudospoofing is nothing but a hypocrite. If pseudospoofing is OK, then why hide it? If you are hiding it, does that mean it is not OK? the second pseudospoofing survey -- As an example of this idea of disclosure, I asked two prominent cypherpunk `leaders' (who object to the term, and will remain nameless to protect their `privacy') to answer the following questions, which would obviously unequivocally resolve their own involvement in the practice of `pseudospoofing':
I will stop harassing you two personally over the issue of pseudospoofing if you post the following, and cc: me:
1) how many identities each of you is currently maintaining 2) how many U.S. states they span 3) how many countries they span 4) how many independent phone numbers you have established 5) what mailing lists you are using them in, past & present 6) what newsgroups you are using them in, past & present 7) the people you have privately emailed under them 8) how many other people you know in Cypherpunks who are routinely pseudospoofing 9) their own responses to these questions 10) your software capabilities in promoting the pseudospoofing agenda 11) the number of hours per day you spend on pseudospoofing 12) your future intentions in promoting the capability
Note that I am not requesting that you actually disclose any of the identities (or even close geographical information). Since you find pseudospoofing entirely ethical, I see no reason you would object to answering any of the above.
Otherwise, `the beatings will continue until morale improves'
p.s. what do you think of the RISKS article? I think it turned out great. Hope to hear from you. <g>
If you wish to make your own demands, I'm negotiable.
I asked these questions because I was disapointed by the results of my survey I posted to talk.politics.crypto. While I received many responses, few were from the cypherpunks who had openly advocated pseudospoofing on this list. And the `core cypherpunk leadership' was completely unrepresented. I was laboring under the impression that everyone that passionately pursued pseudospoofing was also passionately interested in explaining their brilliant techniques! But it appears they are very reluctant to talk about their obviously highly refined culture of science, religion, and art of pseudospoofing. I greatly despaired that the cypherpunks were so unrepresented officially, especially given their strong advocation of pseudospoofing. Surely, they would want to let the world know about their religion! If they didn't, it might look like they were not holy saints but just lowly conspirators! Also, this could be the comprehensive official cypherpunk statement crafted by EH and TCM (revered cypherpunk leaders) on pseudospoofing that has so far eluded me. A Tale of Two `Cypherpunks' (Or: The Postmaster, The Magicians, and the Critic) -- So I devised this new variation of my previous survey, designed to be completely free of `invasions of privacy', and targeted at the core cypherpunk leadership. Sort of like a direct mailing approach. Anyway, in response to my questions, one of the two eminent cypherpunks was very terse, as he has a habit of being, and called my questions `inquisitional'. I guess he was referring to the Spanish Inquisition, where all kinds of grisly torture devices were used to extract `confessions' from supposed criminals (often completely innocent). I'm not clear of the connection. Perhaps someone could elaborate on this metaphor. The second cypherpunk was more grandiose and verbose in his rhetoric. He acknowledged that `I have resisted until now responding to your recent rants'. For those not currently familar with the unique language of the Pseudospoofing Religion, he was saying here that he has not answered any of my questions directly so far because, likely, the answers would be embarrassing, incriminating, humiliating or all of the above. He was so compassionate as to remark on my recent apparent strain over the topic of pseudospoofing, suggesting that I seek counseling or take a long vacation from the Net (thanks so much for your concern). Then he talked about how my `threats' especially the `violent ones' could not be `idly dismissed'. This cypherpunk has an extremely active imagination (this is evidenced in his love for great works of science fiction, especially those that refer to the blurring of identities). I'm not sure where he got the idea about `violence'. The only violence that has ever been involved is entirely metaphorical, happening on the plane of reputations and credibility. (I assure you that lately I am bloody myself!) Maybe he took the obviously satirical line about `continued beatings' literally. Ah, he is quite suggestible. I guess the only thing I can remember on this subject was Dinkelacker's letter to me, `you better start looking over your shoulder'. That was *definitely* unpleasant! Oh, and there was what's-his-name's comment, `I'm going to come over and kill your family with a rusty razor blade'. This cypherpunk goes on to say that I have turned myself into the `laughingstock of the Net [...]' from `your latest paranoid descent into fantasy in RISKS, and your email harassment of many of us.' As for `paranoid descent into fantasy', I think everyone understood this was a hypothetical scenario. Maybe Mr. Cypherpunk has information that suggests otherwise. If so, I would love to see it, as I'm sure everyone else here would too. Actually, it's all I've been aiming for over about a dozen posts and articles now. I'm not sure what he is referring to as `harassment'. I think some of the questions I have raised in my writings on pseudospoofing, and perhaps the questions above, he considers `harassing'. I'm quite at a loss as to why. The questions I included above are very innocuous. I would think that someone proud of themselves and their beliefs would humor me immediately in answering them, recognizing that I will not go away until they do so (and answering a simple question, of course, is just common courtesy). Certainly, I would fill out the questions myself, and am sure many other honest cypherpunks would see no invasion of privacy in doing so either (they are vague enough to protect privacy, IMHO, as designed to do, but of course I'm biased!). This cypherpunk closes by stating that `I have a strong feeling that you're going to have a very hard time getting a job in the computer industry after this spectacular series of rants.' Thanks, again, for your concern! Actually, I have made some very valuable contacts from professionals from the RISKS article, who are as concerned about these issues as I am. My mailbox has been quite deep with requests for the `Joy of Pseudospoofing' essay, first posted here! (Again, if anyone has not seen it, please email me.) I'm quite glad I managed to get in this prestigious journal, because now others can be aware of the potential abuses of widespread, systematic, routine pseudospoofing. The cypherpunks have been largely uninterested or critical in my writings on the subject, so it's very refreshing to find someone else in Cyberspace who can discuss something as important as pseudospoofing dispassionately, knowledgeably, and honestly. The `terse' cypherpunk had earlier notified my postmaster about my public posting here revealing Mr. Metzger's (prominent cypherpunk and close friend of the core leadership) mailbombing me and further mailbomb threats. He didn't find it necessary to notify my postmaster this time about my `inquisitional' questions. I guess he understood when my postmaster and I both sent him mail explaining why this was an inappropriate tactic. The second cypherpunk had not previously mailed my postmaster, but
I am taking the step I have never before considered doing, in more than five years of active participation in the Net, of copying your postmaster on this note. Maybe he can talk some sense to you.
I guess the `terse' cypherpunk had not informed him that my postmaster was uninterested in his personal problems. (This is surprising, given their obviously strong affinity for each other.) But my postmaster did send him a note later explaining why he `didn't have time for this nonsense'. There do not appear to be any new developments along this line. I am crossing my fingers that my postmaster will not be further harassed by other cypherpunks. Anyway, I think he has already decided I have just offended a particularly vocal group of raving religious fanatics. (Some other people have gotten this impression from the RISKS article. Maybe the clarifications on pseudospoofing by the top leadership will help resolve all this.) I generally regard all these lamentations and supplications to my postmaster as extremely desperate attempts to censor me where all other efforts at silencing me have failed. Also, I think they are definitely invasions of my privacy. How many other people out there would like to have your postmaster bothered just because you offended some particularly sensitive people? Again, if you object to what I write, just stick me in your kill file. You will certainly save us both a lot of trouble! Mr. Hughes, our eminent and esteemed moderator, has recommended this numerous times in other contexts. I'm absolutely aghast and amazed at how many cypherpunks think that the most effective way of getting me to be quiet is to send me mail. It is quite a curious and perplexing approach. (Even more baffling was Mr. Metzger's procedure of sending me mail, saying essentially `do not reply to this or I will mailbomb you with 400 messages.' I respond to virtually all personal mail, but as I noted I have made a worthy exception for His Royal Eminence, as learned the hard way.) (I would like to thank those who have the power to censor me and have refrained. It shows you have a strong and admirable sense of morality. At one point someone told me `If I did not allow you to post, that would not be censorship'. I never understood the reasoning. But so far, it appears that the cypherpunks are generally opposed to direct censorship, although the indirect route is not taboo.) The bottom line is that my efforts at enlightenment, now spanning many weeks, have so far have gone `unrequited'. The top cypherpunks do not wish to reveal the extent their amazing feats of pseudospoofing. We can only continue to speculate on their sheer prowess and fantastic span! (I'm currently investigating the opportunity to do so in reputable publications -- email me and I will toss your offer into the current batch under consideration). I guess the Tantalizing Two feel that `a magician never reveals his secrets'. And what amazing feats of deception we have witnessed! Dozens of Rabbits emanating from a Single Hat, all while the magician says, `nothing up my sleeves!' Are there any stagehands or informed audience members that would like to comment on their masters' remarkable skill? So far, it is a remarkably unified front. But I am continuing to `cram' wedges into the cracks... Ah, the pity of it all. The tension, anxiety, and anticipation is driving me crazy! I wish to consummate this affair, so to speak! The spotlight continues to burn down hotly! When will the show be over? When can I go home? Tell my friends what happened in the end and write my review? When will the fat lady sing? p.s. anyone in Colorado, PRZ is giving a talk in Boulder on Sunday I think. if you email me I might be able to scrounge up the details somewhere in my piles of slobbering hate mail. <g>