I was recently marvelling at how much the "cypherpunk agenda" is being advanced even in light of what would seem to be setbacks. Particularly in the area of anonymous remailers. We now have a very major article on remailers and Julf's setup in the NYT that portrays them in an unbiased, unhysteria-stricken mode. Also in the article, it quotes the police as regretting their falling victim to Scientology manipulation and investigating the remailer "without cause". A major officer is quoted as saying, roughly, "we are going to need a crime before we investigate in the future". Look what we got out of this: 1) incredible positive publicity for Julf, Hero of the Net 2) introduction of the concept of anonymous remailers to the layman 3) police awareness. increased reluctance to go on anonymous remailer witchhunts. advice to other police to do the same. 4) only *one* address was compromised on Julf's system. a small price to pay for all this 5) Time Magazine also did an article on Julf a few months ago and this compromise in identity. *astonishing* publicity. All in all, I would say the effect was an overall "net positive". It reminds me of a zen-like saying, "sometimes you lose by winning and win by losing". It would seem on the face of it that the Helsingius Affair was a debacle from the point of view of pseudonymity. However I would consider it a extraordinary success. The major foes of pseudonymity have so far been misguided police forces in Finland, who now say they resent the solicitude of the US into their own affairs, and would not be so eager to cooperate in the future; another foe is a radical religious cult that is finding its own set of 20th century heretics, and attempting to excommunicate them. In the meantime, with each exposure, the idea of anonymity and pseudonymity is gaining powerful friends. Also, a long time ago a major foe of anonymity was Dick Depew. An article came out on him in the WSJ that made him look awfully silly. He is roundly considered one of the more legendary net crackpots today. === I'd also like to point out that the recent Rimm job affair is another "net positive" for the net. Rimm has been so utterly thoroughly discredited and blackened by his own personality and background, as reported by Brock Meeks recently, it is amazingly hilarious. Rimm has become the laughingstock of cyberspace in the way that Cantor and Siegal were We could not have asked for a better setup for embarrassing and humiliating the media into realizing the core issues involving pornography on the internet. If someone did this intentionally, it would have been considered a brilliant trap. Time and DeWitt have been savaged by very reputable people, and I'm sure they consider the article a fiasco from a credibility standpoint. Any magazine that covers pornography in cyberspace in the future will be very gunshy and will not be so flippant, if they can stand poking the hornet's nest at all. === Another area is in the bills that are being introduced in congress. It would seem these are a fiasco from the point of view of those interested in cyberspace. But there are backlashes even in congress. Was it Markey that introduced a bill that made cyberspace off limits to future draconian legislation? All this also forces legislators to figure out what the hell they are dealing with, and they are finding out what their own authority in the matter is. I think the wise ones may figure out that if they don't play nice, we may take our marbles away and go play with someone else. D.Frissell said something profound in his letter to the editor, "Congress thinks the Internet can be controlled. We who built it, and continue to build it, think it cannot be. It will be interesting to see who is right". His comparing it with the ideas in the declaration of independence, that "when a government no longer serves the people, they have a right to overthrow it", is extremely apropos in cyberspace, where it may be more possible than ever for those who desire freedom to make those who are apposed to it, completely irrelevant. T.May suggest that we just give up the fight in congress, saying that bills can be introduced faster than we can fight them. I agree with the observation but not the conclusion. Bills have a very hard time getting to be law. They are very fragile in initial stages, and at these points they can indeed be killed with a little pressure in the right spots. We are learning where those spots are. At this point I think it is not in the interests of those promoting cyberspace to try to evade congress. So far, it has not proved itself to be completely hostile to the point of trying to shut down cyberspace to the degree it does not fit its own agenda. And as long as they are not outright enemies, some could be turned into powerful promoters. The idea of abandoning educating/influencing congress entirely seems like a kind of unhealthy nihilism to me. There are allies in congress and there are people listening there. Their unawareness seems amazingly proportional to the cluelessness of the general population about cyberspace (and I see extremely encouraging signs both are rapidly diminishing). The bills seem to becoming more desperate and draconian in their language. This is a sign of fear and dread on the side that seeks to regulate bits. They are in a tricky position, because the more draconian the language, the less likely it is to be passed and taken seriously. People become suspicious and hypersensitive to the infractions. To a large degree, many parts in the government only gain their power through secrecy. As people become more aware of the power flow, they disrupt and seize it themselves. Every bill that has more desperate language is the other side revealing their secret agenda, to control thought, which I think reasonable people are increasingly considering and recognizing as bogus and bankrupt. Congress will eventually polarize into being generally promoting of cyberspace, or outrightly hostile to it. Cyberspace will inevitably escape its grip if congress goes in this direction. To use Zen analogies again, there is the idea that water is the most powerful force on the earth, because it simply flows around that which opposes it. I find that cyberspace is wholly analogous. In fact it seems to me that cyberspace would give Lao Tzu a whole new cuttingly apt metaphor for his philosophies!! === So the next time that you rant about how some bill or another means the Death of the Net, or the police investigating a remailer means the downfall of cryptoanarchy, or a lousy article with a zillion distortions comes out, think again. The greatest cypherpunk victories are emerging through what would appear at first to be the "blackest" moments. viva la cryptoanarchy!!! ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ \ / ~/ |\| | | |> | : : : : : : Vladimir Z. Nuri : : : : <vznuri@netcom.com> \/ ./_.| | \_/ |\ | : : : : : : ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/vz/vznuri/home.html