No one said anything about becoming "suits", Tim. The problem is this: the name "Cypherpunks" makes us sound like people who break into computers for fun or other such stuff. I was on the phone with John Markoff of the New York Times a couple of days ago, and I was unhappy that no one had yet changed the name of the group because I frankly felt that I could not encourage him to subscribe -- the results would be unpredictable. I encouraged him to read more sci.crypt instead, which he has already been doing. I've been associated with radical political causes for a while. I've found that in general, the radicals are their own worst enemy. People are NOT happy about being lectured to by strange-acting people. Bill Winter of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire was their chairman over the period in which the LPNH went from four members of the state party to actually becoming a force in New Hampshire politics. New Hampshire is the *only* LP outpost to make any significant electoral inroads, *anywhere*. He once told me this: you can get people to accept strange sounding ideas when promulgated by normal looking people. You can get them to accept normal-sounding ideas when promulgated by strange looking people. You can't get them to accept strange ideas when promulgated by strange people. No, I'm not saying you should wear a suit. I'm not saying John Gilmore should cut his hair and start wearing Armani. I'm just saying that our name is a stumbling block. Why shoot ourselves in the foot for something worthless? The simple change in our name from something confrontational that makes us sound like machine crackers to something that expresses what this group is about would make a radical positive change in our image. Now, what are the benefits of keeping the current name "cypherpunks"? Well, lets see Tim's list.

In a sense, Cypherpunks fill an important ecological niche by being the outrageous side, the radical side...perhaps a bit like the role the Black Panthers, Yippies, and Weather Underground played a generation ago.

None of whom accomplished any of their goals. You REALLY want to emulate them? I've been an occassional visitor to #9 Bleeker Street, where Dana Beal, last of the Yippies, holds court. He doesn't wash regularly, and he wonders occassionaly why no one takes his drug legalization crusade seriously. Hint: they are connected. We can't afford to lose this fight. This is a matter of life and death. Playing out fantasy games about being 1960s radicals is fine and well -- when you don't care about the outcome. We can't afford to lose, so we can't afford to emulate losing strategies.

And, frankly, my guess is that even most of Middle America will feel somewhat more comfortable listening to a John Gilmore, for example, than a Bill Gates-type nerd clone. People know honesty and sincerity when they see it, and they know lawyers when they see them. It's been 25 years since the hippie heyday, and most Americans have adjusted to varying outward appearances.

Well, I'm not proposing that John not be a spokesman -- most of our interaction with the media is happening electronically and not in person, and John is eloquent. But you are fooling yourself if you think people listen to Hippies over Suits. I'm speaking as a person who used to have long hair and worked exclusively in Tee-shirt and shorts. I feel more comfortable dressed that way -- but these days I wear a suit because thats what gets me paid. I'm also speaking as a person who's extensively looked at this question in connection with my activism in the Libertarian Party. The fact is this: over and over again, every scientific study thats been done (by lots of people), every anecdotal comparison I can make in things like why one LP candidate did well and another did poorly or why one local group soared while another failed, each one of them point to the same conclusion: that conclusion is, sadly, that you are completely wrong Tim, and that people judge by appearances, and that even the most down and out people in our society will take the word of a person who looks respectable over a person who doesn't. This includes hackers -- hackers will trust grungy looking people as soon as they have verified that they are fellow hackers, but watch what they do sometime when they drive by a hitchhiker as casually dressed as themselves. Take a sample of hackers, put them in a sociology lab, show them videotapes of people making statements who are dressed like hippies and dressed like bankers, and five will get you ten that they react just like the rest of the population. Influencing the public is not a guessing game any more -- its a science. People have done honest to god studies on this. I'll happily forward you references if you want.

We don't all have the same politics...some of us are anarcho-capitalists, some are socialists (I hear), some are nonpolitical (as near as I can tell), some decline to state, and some may off in their own uncharted territory. But what we all seem to believe in common is that no government has the right to force us to make tape recordings of all of our conversations (to be placed in escrow, in case the government someday needs to listen to them!), to tap our phones, to insist we speak in government-approved non-coded language, and to use their "Wiretap Chips."

Fine and dandy, but how does changing our name to "cryptoprivacy" harm any of this?

In any case, it's much too late to change the name now.

No its not. Its perfectly easy.

And note tha the "Hackers Conference" has not changed _their_ name, either, despite the negative publicity given the name.

They aren't doing any lobbying. Their name doesn't matter. Their image makes no difference at all. Ours does.

As for respectablity, is our goal to be "co-opted" into the Establishment?

Tim, I'm an anarchist. Do you REALLY think I'm about to become co-opted by the establishment? Is it REALLY your belief that changing the name of the group to "cryptoprivacy" would turn me into a raving statist, foaming at the mouth about imposing regulatory control structures?

There are already several groups, as I've mentioned, made up of lawyers and "respectable spokesmen" like Mitch Kapor and Mike Godwin (wherever he is now).

No one can log in to their groups -- we provide an essential service. I WANT the New York Times reporter reading this group, but I don't want him to think we are crackers or nuts.

But I don't plan to shave off my beard, cut my hair, start wearing suits, or be "moderate and reasonable" in my arguments.

Who asked you to? You aren't going on television, and moderating your ARGUMENTS is useless. I'm talking about appearances, nothing more. Our name is cheap and easy to change. It costs us little, and I'm not proposing we change anything else. Perry