Many Topics are Appropriate for Discussion Here
At 2:38 PM 11/3/95, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Look, its simple. If you want the FBI and NSA to win, post lots of crap here. Nothing will help them out more than clogging one of the few communications channels available to people interested in spreading cryptography. If you are really successful, all the smart people will leave (as has happened in waves before -- the losses of Steve Bellovin and (effectively) Phil Karn are still felt) and you will have totally destroyed the channel.
There have been many posts which are more "clogging" than some minor conspiracy rants. And if people don't want to respond to these rants, they'll decline. Far more serious, in my opinion of course, are the cross-posts to multiple mailing lists and the various press releases and position papers bombarding us. Implying that the reason Bellovin and Karn left the list--if they did, as I haven't checked--was because of "off-topic" posts seems to be a stretch. Even if Perry has gotten assurances from them personally that the "off-topic" posts were a major factor, I'm not sure much can be concluded from this. People leave for all sorts of reasons. I don't know what reasons, if any, were responsible for the unsubscribings (or at least nonpostings) of Bellovin or Karn, but I'm not too sure it matters. I don't think it is useful to speculate on the causes for specific people leaving the list, or even to ask them why they left. If they feel it is important for us to know that they left the list because of too much talk about UFOs, or about IETF committees, or about Netscape breakages, they can tell us in their departing message. Certainly using the departure of J. Random Subscriber, or even R. Noted Hacker, as "proof" that topics are inappropriate is flawed logic. "We've lost fine subscribers like Phil Zimmermann because of crap posted here." I suspect there's some fancy Latin name for this kind of appeal to authority. Topics have always been in flux, which is almost certainly a good thing, else a lot of us would have left a long time ago. Certainly those interested in some topics have little if any interest in other topics. Lots of other people have joined the list, and the subscription base has done from an earlier plateau of about 700 subscribers to more than 1200 recently. And many of the current subscribers are very active in cryptography and security. I'd be tempted to mention a half dozen or so names, but anyone I left out might feel slighted. I do agree with Perry that longish political essays are probably not the _best_ material for this list, though thoughtful essays on the implications of digital cash, such as several folks have written about, are always useful. And there are many troubling aspects of "crypto anarchy" that need more explication, something I always feel is approprate for this list. I am much less bothered by _custom written_ essays by current subscribers, whatever the topic, than by reposts of long articles from other lists. Thus, occasional rants from list members are preferable, to me, to longish essays from outsiders, generally speaking. Political aspects of strong cryptography have always been important to this list. Though new subscribers may be forgiven for thinking this is the "Netscape bug list," such has not always been the case. Key escrow was a dominant topic in the early days, as it is today. And there are massive numbers of issues to be discussed in the digital money area, involving banking laws, the role of intelligence agencies in desiring to monitor cash flows, the legal implications of anonymous cash, and scads of technical issues. --Tim May Views here are not the views of my Internet Service Provider or Government. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
Hi folks, There is a bug in mh mail that causes all mails to be rejected after there are more than 9999 in the same mailbox. I recieved 100 in two hours today so I suspect the subject line may well be related to my earlier post. They mostly fell on the floor. The rest are 50-50 pro/anti. Just a calibration point. The libertarians on the list do not seem to shrink from expressing their political views. Indeed the entire discussion on the NSA is a political thread pure and simple. My post related directly to the question of personal privacy rights in a democratic, plural society. I do not regard that it was off topic in any sense. I was not aware that any agreement was in effect as to the method by which goals might be achieved. I chose to persue goals by the means most likely to succeed. In that I am a pragmatist. Government regulation often provides social benefits it is not by definition an evil to be avoided. In any case regardless of the rhetoric government regulation increases, I prefer to press for some regulations I like rather than dream about there being none whatsoever. I do not separate the question of politics from technology. My reasons for working on the Web have from the start been explicity political. I regard the persuit of technology without consideration of the political consequences to be unethical. I am only in a position to influence the political process if I understand the position of the administration and can demonstrate an appreciation of their concerns. As Sun Tsu said "you must build a golden path along which your enemies may retreat". The problem with government is not that it is a conspiracy, it is an interlocking series of beuraucracies which all seek to avoid responsibility. If you want to get Phil Z. off the hook or foul up the governments escrow scheme plans you have tobe prepared to step into their mindset and walk about on the inside a bit. somewhere inside the government there is a jobsworth who is deciding to hassle Phil Z., this person will be a civil servant, not a political appointee. Ie the dregs which get left behind each time there is a new administration. What we need to do is to identify that person and nail their ass to the wall. It has to become apparent to the administration that that individual has created an unnecessary source of embarassment. It seems to me that the purpose of key escrow is not to allow the US govmt to spy on its citizens. I think they want to stop strong crypto getting out because there are still a large number of governments cables they can break and they want the fun to continue a while. No external government is going to trust a system that is clearly subject to US govt. interference. If someone comes up with a crypto proposal to avoid paying taxes I know it will never get anywhere. If they come up with a crypto proposal that guarantees that a tax is paid but conceals the identity of the persons involved I get much more interested. If somone makes contiuous political spiels themselves but object when I make one they disagree with (as one person has done) I am not going to take their objection as indicating anything other than an inability to argue their case. Phill PS I'm also none to impressed by people who make comments like "you are wrong about XXX but I won't explain why".
hallam@w3.org writes:
There is a bug in mh mail that causes all mails to be rejected after there are more than 9999 in the same mailbox. I recieved 100 in two hours today so I suspect the subject line may well be related to my earlier post.
There isn't such a bug in MH, but mhe, if you are using it, won't show more than that number. Simply split your mailbox and all is well again.
Just a calibration point. The libertarians on the list do not seem to shrink from expressing their political views.
I don't express my general political opinions very much at all. As it turns out, I'm a very radical libertarian, and anyone reading my stuff elsewhere would know that, but I don't discuss this stuff in public.
Indeed the entire discussion on the NSA is a political thread pure and simple.
This list *is* political in the sense that it is for people who have chosen the view that the spread of cryptography is good. It is not, however, a list for just *any* political discussion. The topic is purely cryptography, and we operate largely from the viewpoint that if you think crypto is very evil you probably should discuss that elsewhere.
Government regulation often provides social benefits it is not by definition an evil to be avoided.
I would disagree, but that is a discussion for elsewhere.
If someone comes up with a crypto proposal to avoid paying taxes I know it will never get anywhere.
A lot of what Tim May has been talking about here for many years is the inevitability that cryptography will weaken current financial controls -- sooner or later, whether the central governments want it to happen or not.
PS I'm also none to impressed by people who make comments like "you are wrong about XXX but I won't explain why".
I sent you a detailed explanation, in PRIVATE mail, of why you were wrong about governments being the only way to provide roads, including lots of counterexamples to your claim. However, this is not libernet, this is cypherpunks, and this isn't a place for that discussion. Thats why I sent you PRIVATE mail. Perry
Timothy C. May writes:
Implying that the reason Bellovin and Karn left the list--if they did, as I haven't checked--was because of "off-topic" posts seems to be a stretch.
They both left because the noise level was too high and the cryptography content too low. I'll ask Steve to comment if you insist.
Certainly using the departure of J. Random Subscriber, or even R. Noted Hacker, as "proof" that topics are inappropriate is flawed logic. "We've lost fine subscribers like Phil Zimmermann because of crap posted here." I suspect there's some fancy Latin name for this kind of appeal to authority.
The point of this list is to provide the community of people who are interested in cryptography and its application to further personal freedom to congregate and exchange information. If important members of that community -- people with important input to give -- cease to be here because of the noise level, then we most certainly are not meeting our goal. Its not a question of appeal to authority, except that we want this list to appeal (in the other sense) to authorities in this field.
Lots of other people have joined the list, and the subscription base has done from an earlier plateau of about 700 subscribers to more than 1200 recently.
I don't care about quantity. Steve Bellovin is worth 500 subscribers -- maybe 1000. I'd rather hear his or Phil's off the cuff remarks on a lot of this stuff than most of what passes for careful thought from the average person here.
Political aspects of strong cryptography have always been important to this list. Though new subscribers may be forgiven for thinking this is the "Netscape bug list," such has not always been the case. Key escrow was a dominant topic in the early days, as it is today.
Key Escrow is a fine topic of conversation. My problem is when someone posts a long and totally irrelevant article about the value of internet stocks to the list, as just happened. Perry
Perry writes:
I don't care about quantity. Steve Bellovin is worth 500 subscribers -- maybe 1000. I'd rather hear his or Phil's off the cuff remarks on a lot of this stuff than most of what passes for careful thought from the average person here.
I have some not-so-hypothetical questions: Suppose I have serious and plausibly realistic aspirations to become an authority in some subtopic of cryptography, network security, etc. (sometime well into the next millenium). Am I more likely to learn and hone my skills by actively participating (sticking my neck out) or merely lurking indefinitely ? Regardless of the answer to the previous question, should the list suffer me my missteps and naivete ? I do not consider these questions rhetorical, and the answers are very important to me on a personal level. And now I believe I'll shut up for a while. -Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>
Futplex writes:
Perry writes:
I don't care about quantity. Steve Bellovin is worth 500 subscribers -- maybe 1000. I'd rather hear his or Phil's off the cuff remarks on a lot of this stuff than most of what passes for careful thought from the average person here.
I have some not-so-hypothetical questions:
Suppose I have serious and plausibly realistic aspirations to become an authority in some subtopic of cryptography, network security, etc. (sometime well into the next millenium). Am I more likely to learn and hone my skills by actively participating (sticking my neck out) or merely lurking indefinitely ? Regardless of the answer to the previous question, should the list suffer me my missteps and naivete ?
I do not consider these questions rhetorical, and the answers are very important to me on a personal level.
I don't see any problem with a naive person participating. I do see something wrong with people posting stuff that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of cryptography etc. A discussion of social security privatization might be interesting, but irrelevant, to name one example. Perry
On Fri, 3 Nov 1995, Futplex wrote:
Suppose I have serious and plausibly realistic aspirations to become an authority in some subtopic of cryptography, network security, etc. (sometime well into the next millenium). Am I more likely to learn and hone my skills by actively participating (sticking my neck out) or merely lurking indefinitely ? Regardless of the answer to the previous question, should the list suffer me my missteps and naivete ?
I too have though about this question. While I write crypto code and know some areas quite well, I also seem to be blessed with the ability to displaying my total ignorance in other areas in very public forums. Since I have no professional reputation to protect (I don't work in the crypto field) and don't really have any 'aspirations to become an authority', I feel I can do this so long as I also make an effort to answer the question in the area of my expertise and to also share the information I gain. The difference between ignorance and stupidity is that one decreases with time :-). eric (who is quite happy to admit his ignorance :-) -- Eric Young | Signature removed since it was generating AARNet: eay@mincom.oz.au | more followups than the message contents :-)
Suppose I have serious and plausibly realistic aspirations to become an authority in some subtopic of cryptography, network security, etc. (sometime well into the next millenium). Am I more likely to learn and hone my skills by actively participating (sticking my neck out) or merely lurking indefinitely ? Regardless of the answer to the previous question, should the list suffer me my missteps and naivete ?
This dependsd on what you are attempting to do. If you are attempting to not be thought a fool by anyone then keep quiet. If you want to learn something then you have to speak up. If you have an idea then the only way to know if it is any good is to test it. In the sciences we perform experiments. In engineering and social sciences this is not necessarily possible. We can still test an idea by voicing it and looking at the response. This is the heart of Habbermass's theory of communicative action (modulo it is impossible to communicate such a complex set of ideas in a single paragraph). Just because the response to an idea is hostile does not make it invalid however, the quality of the responses matters. If you get back a reasoned argument you may judge it on the basis of the plausibility of its axioms and the correctness of its logic - accepting that the argument may be incomplete and not fully explain the point of view. If on the other hand people write "This is wrong and I've told the person why in secret" then the argument probably isn't valid. The funniest version of this type of post being the "Here is an example of what is wrong, I won't waste bandwidth here explaining the faults even though I have already done so in making the post in the first place. So I have not only wasted bandwidth but interrupted a lot of people with a vacuous post. To address perrys point on social security privatisation, If there was such a proposal and the basis on which it were to be run was that the privatised company would gain all the data rights then I think there would be the very type of political debate that characterises clipper. One thing about the "new" key escrow system that people have not picked up on. Would you trust Microsoft to be a key agent if you were Lotus or vice-versa? Why on earth should private key escrow be any better? Phill
participants (5)
-
Eric Young -
futplex@pseudonym.com -
hallam@w3.org -
Perry E. Metzger -
tcmay@got.net