t-shirts, imagery, and Cypherpunks PR
From: koontzd@lrcs.loral.com (David Koontz ) <koontzd/daemon>
fnerd@smds.com For a logo... how a bout a fist holding a key?
How about a mailed fist holding a key, with the caption
Privacy is our Profession
I like it, but it doesn't emphasize the fact that we're fighting a war here, a war against government oppression. We're fighting a guerilla war, here folks, on the future battlefield of cyberspace. And like anyone fighting a dinosaur, we've got a big jump on the enemy in that we know our way around in this new world, and they're dumb, blind, and slow. We can hit them where they're weak, use disinformation techniques to confuse them, and then fade into the mist. We can introduce false data into their computers to make them run in circles, and drop their systems completely in classic guerilla style. The people will follow us, because we've got truth and freedom on our side -- all we have to do is explain this, and we've won! The leviathan must fall, and we'll help it along its way! We must arm ourselves conventionally, also, for those dark days that may be ahead. When a monster this size falls, we have no idea how chaotic things may become. Automatic weapons, the Anarchist's Cookbook (suitably corrected, of course), and other martial pastimes will balance our technological wizardry. Hm. It's not a particularly good imitation of Tim May's classic parodies, but it'll have to do for now. Folks, we're fighting a war. A public relations war. We are not, NOT, fighting a conventional war. Violence is not something we can have associated with us. We cannot be seen as hardcore anarchists, intent on crushing the state. We cannot enter into an obvious, head-to-head conflict with our country's government, particularly law enforcement. For us to be perceived as such in the eyes of Joe Sixpack is fatal. We will be, indeed we will have BEEN, marginalized and rendered impotent and irrelevant. For us to become so engaged in conflict in *fact* is to have lost, because we have nothing like the power of our wonderful government. If we give them an excuse, they'll crush us like bugs. We can't be seen as crazed revolutionaries. We have to be more like relatively harmless specialists in the field of privacy in cyberspace, explaining that technology has the potential to cause arbitrary badness, and we've got ideas about how to do things a different, better way. We can be out on the fringe of normality, but if we're seen in the same light as [fill in your favorite trivialized group of wackos here], we're fucked. Martyrdom is sexy and romantic, but rarely useful, and almost never ideal. Do keep in mind that this entire message is my personal opinion about how to go about making the world a better place. I'm not completely psycho about it, I don't think people with different ideas are stupid or even necessarily wrong. I just think the "conflict" meme is in danger of being given too much emphasis. -- Scott Northrop <skyhawk@cpac.washington.edu> (206)784-2083 ObVirus: The demand for obedience is inherently evil. ObVirus2: As a juror in a Trial by Jury, you have the right, power and duty to acquit the defendant if you judge the law itself to be unjust.
Scott Northrup writes a wonderful crypto rant:
I like it, but it doesn't emphasize the fact that we're fighting a war here, a war against government oppression. We're fighting a guerilla war, here folks, on the future battlefield of cyberspace. And like anyone fighting a dinosaur, we've got a big jump on the enemy in that we know our way around in this new
...part of this elided to save space....
things may become. Automatic weapons, the Anarchist's Cookbook (suitably corrected, of course), and other martial pastimes will balance our technological wizardry.
Wonderful!
Hm. It's not a particularly good imitation of Tim May's classic parodies, but it'll have to do for now.
A puzzlement! Two questions: 1. You mean you weren't serious, that this was meant to be a parody? 2. You mean you think my posts (and my rants) are meant as parodies? I don't know which is more disturbing. In any case, I completely agree with what you wrote. (I'll plead guilty to occasionally writing satires and parodies, but most of my posts are meant seriously, even the occasional "rants," like where I get angry at gun control and midnight raids and suggest we need to prepare ourselves for a "Branch Cryptidians" type of situation. Perhaps I get too worked-up in these posts, but they're certainly not meant as parodies.) By the way, the mention of "The Anarchist's Cookbook" is quite apropos: sitting on my bookshelf near me is a loose-leaf binder labelled "The Crypto Anarchist's Cookbook," a collection of ideas and plans I began in 1988, when I coined the term and distributed my "Crypto Anarchist Manifesto" (available in the soda.berkeley.edu archive). (What's in the "Crypto Anarchist's Cookbook": Stuff on digital money, information markets, data havens, bootleg medical research networks, whistle blowing, using religions and games as legal cover for encryption, schemes for an "electronic Democracy Wall," and the "Labyrinth," a network of remailers I devised before learning of Chaum's 1981 work and his "DC-Net" of 1988...I eagerly told Chaum about my ideas for untraceable mail when I met him at the 1988 Crypto Conference and he looked at me in a funny way and then told me he'd invented these in 1981 and called them "mixes"! I was both crestfallen and pleased, for the obvious reasons. Eric Hughes has suggested I contact Loompanics Press--publisher and mail-order source of various weird books, and a source you should all know about--about publishing something like this. Some of the crypto books they publish ("Beyond Decoder Rings") are really lame...some crypto anarchy stuff could really find a market, I think.)
If we give them an excuse, they'll crush us like bugs.
We can't be seen as crazed revolutionaries. We have to be more like relatively harmless specialists in the field of privacy in cyberspace, explaining that technology has the potential to cause arbitrary badness, and we've got ideas about how to do things a different, better way. We can be out on the fringe of normality, but if we're seen in the same light as [fill in your favorite trivialized group of wackos here], we're fucked. Martyrdom is sexy and romantic, but rarely useful, and almost never ideal.
Do keep in mind that this entire message is my personal opinion about how to go about making the world a better place. I'm not completely psycho about it, I don't think people with different ideas are stupid or even necessarily wrong. I just think the "conflict" meme is in danger of being given too much emphasis.
Boy, the debate about our mission is really getting interesting! I applaud this debate, even if I disagree with Scott on these points. As with the debate several months back over the _name_ of our group ("Cypherpunks" is seen as too subversive, too outre, by some, who would prefer some name that is less threatening, such as the "Crypto Privacy Association"), there are positives and negatives to be found for each side. I've already written too much today, so I'll leave it for others to debate. -Tim May, CPA ("Oh, an accountant?" "No, I'm a crypto privacy advocate." "Oh.") -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.
participants (2)
-
skyhawk＠cpac.washington.edu -
tcmay＠netcom.com