Crypto McCarthyism ...thoughts, gentlemen?
Gentlemen[*]: Looking for a modern revisitation of this 1996 Cyber McCarthyism paper (snips below). Something with an academic & empirical focus. Eh, I'm not holding my breath....so, I would equally value your thoughts on the following, in light of all the "cryptoboogeymen" popping out of closets into guv'mint press releases and hearings lately: o What do you think about [1-2]? o Contemporary parallels? (use of crypto as an aggravating factor in punishment, etc.) o Finally, how could [3] come about in the context of crypto (and other digital freedoms)? Whatever. Somehow, I don't think this group likes pointy questions. My apologies for the intrusion, I return to you to your regularly scheduled Choatian programming, and thoughts of edible panties. [*]appearances suggest an absence of participatory estrogen in here. ======================================================================= Electronic Journal of Sociology (1996) ISSN: 1176 7323 Cyber McCarthyism: Witch Hunts in the Living Room http://www.sociology.org/content/vol002.001/ling.html <snippage> [1] "This paper examines the potential for electronic communication to spark mass hate such as that seen in colonial Salem and during the McCarthy period." [2] "The elements which go into the development of mass hate include the following: 1) strains on the community through the recognition of a moral boundary crisis and identification of villains, 2) crystallizing of patterned labelling through a degradation ceremony, 3) appropriation of the social apparatus and suppression of critique mechanisms, 4) restoration of a normal situation." [3] "Finally, the fervour came under control. In both of these cases this occurred when the mass hate became a serious threat to the established power structure, members of the government in the case of colonial Salem and the Army in the case of McCarthyism." <end snippage> Respectfully, mailto:aimee.farr@pobox.com Aimee E. Farr, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF AIMEE E. FARR 5400 Bosque, Suite 675 Waco, Texas 76710-4418 office: 254.751.0030 fax: 254.751.09673
Dear Aimee, If you're serious about asking for advice or insight, I'd self-censor the snide comments. This group doesn't like pointy questions? To the contrary, it thrives on them. -Declan On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 12:40:22PM -0600, Aimee Farr wrote:
Whatever. Somehow, I don't think this group likes pointy questions. My apologies for the intrusion, I return to you to your regularly scheduled Choatian programming, and thoughts of edible panties.
[*]appearances suggest an absence of participatory estrogen in here. =======================================================================
Electronic Journal of Sociology (1996) mailto:aimee.farr@pobox.com Aimee E. Farr, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF AIMEE E. FARR 5400 Bosque, Suite 675 Waco, Texas 76710-4418 office: 254.751.0030 fax: 254.751.09673
Dear Aimee,
If you're serious about asking for advice or insight, I'd self-censor the snide comments.
This group doesn't like pointy questions? To the contrary, it thrives on them.
-Declan
Declan, I appreciate your bringing this matter to my attention. My sincere apologies to both you, the cypherpunk community and subscribers. My comments were tongue-in-cheek, a friendly remark regarding Choate's stealth-linkage, and his remarks toward women's undergarments, which I found humorous. My comment in regard to "pointy questions" was an attempt to give any respondents a wide berth in their replies, in recognition of the fact I could be asking the wrong questions, and was receptive of any insight. It was also a reference the number of mysterious queries that flow across the list. My reference to Gentlemen was also not meant disrespectfully, but as a subtle query. Nevertheless, I came across as abrasive and offended members of this forum. _Ladies_ & Gentlemen, you have my apologies for both my breach of decorum and disrespect. Such was certainly not my intention. I stand firmly reprimanded for my hasteful correspondence: [SUBJ: CRYPTO McCARTHYISM...THOUGHTS, GENTLEMEN?] You all have my admiration and respect, which is why I posed my questions to this distinguished group. (I am preparing to debate these issues in a private and hostile forum against experienced opposition. With a few notable exceptions, like Declan, certain viewpoints and experiences are under-represented in traditional source banks.) Excuse my long-windedness. I am trying to convey my intent and sincerity, and make a public, searchable record of my disrepute, my Declan-bitchslap and my apology; not to make excuses for my inappropriate, and inexcusable behavior. Most sincerely, mailto:aimee.farr@pobox.com Aimee E. Farr Law Office Of Aimee E. Farr 5400 Bosque, Suite 675 Waco, Texas 76710-4418 254.751.0030 | 751.0963(fax)
Well, that's about as nice an apology as I've ever seen on any list, let alone cypherpunks. Aimee's initial message deserves a response. (BTW there is a real Waco, Texas lawyer named Aimee Farr who is interested in these issues, though naturally we can't be certain our correspondent is that person.) She asks for our thoughts on this: http://www.sociology.org/content/vol002.001/ling.html Not only is it an uninteresting sociology treatise, but it is a bad uninteresting sociology treatise. The first thing to note, of course, beyond its unnecessary jargon, is that the article is about as wrong as could be. Far from any "boundary crisis" leading to "mass hate," society has instead adopted and then accepted the Internet. It's difficult to be repulsed by something when you use it to share baby pictures with grandparents. One could argue that the article was correct at the time. The article appears to have been written during in 1996, around the time the CDA became law, but even then it was a year after the Time magazine cyberscare, and two years after the CDA was introduced: Cyberporn was old news. Identifying fundamental truths is the mark of good research, and this paper comes up sadly lacking. Since the paper is so flawed, I'm not sure it's worth discussing at length. But, briefly, is crypto as threatening as witches were? Far from it. It -- and its derivative technologies, such as anonymity -- seems to be perceived more as a way to reclaim lost privacy rather than a new and unusual threat. In that sense, it is a conservative technology. (This could change, and certainly the intelligence community is hand-waving about terrorists again, but I doubt it'll have much luck.) -Declan At 10:16 PM 2/10/01 -0600, Aimee Farr wrote:
Dear Aimee,
If you're serious about asking for advice or insight, I'd self-censor the snide comments.
This group doesn't like pointy questions? To the contrary, it thrives on them.
-Declan
Declan, I appreciate your bringing this matter to my attention. My sincere apologies to both you, the cypherpunk community and subscribers. My comments were tongue-in-cheek, a friendly remark regarding Choate's stealth-linkage, and his remarks toward women's undergarments, which I found humorous. My comment in regard to "pointy questions" was an attempt to give any respondents a wide berth in their replies, in recognition of the fact I could be asking the wrong questions, and was receptive of any insight. It was also a reference the number of mysterious queries that flow across the list. My reference to Gentlemen was also not meant disrespectfully, but as a subtle query.
Nevertheless, I came across as abrasive and offended members of this forum. _Ladies_ & Gentlemen, you have my apologies for both my breach of decorum and disrespect. Such was certainly not my intention. I stand firmly reprimanded for my hasteful correspondence: [SUBJ: CRYPTO McCARTHYISM...THOUGHTS, GENTLEMEN?]
You all have my admiration and respect, which is why I posed my questions to this distinguished group. (I am preparing to debate these issues in a private and hostile forum against experienced opposition. With a few notable exceptions, like Declan, certain viewpoints and experiences are under-represented in traditional source banks.)
Excuse my long-windedness. I am trying to convey my intent and sincerity, and make a public, searchable record of my disrepute, my Declan-bitchslap and my apology; not to make excuses for my inappropriate, and inexcusable behavior.
Most sincerely,
mailto:aimee.farr@pobox.com Aimee E. Farr Law Office Of Aimee E. Farr 5400 Bosque, Suite 675 Waco, Texas 76710-4418 254.751.0030 | 751.0963(fax)
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Since the paper is so flawed, I'm not sure it's worth discussing at length. But, briefly, is crypto as threatening as witches were? Far from it. It -- and its derivative technologies, such as anonymity -- seems to be perceived more as a way to reclaim lost privacy rather than a new and unusual threat. In that sense, it is a conservative technology. (This could change, and certainly the intelligence community is hand-waving about terrorists again, but I doubt it'll have much luck.)
They seem to be having trouble putting the crypto kitten back in the bottle. I wonder who is doing more damage to America's image abroad and at home. Terrorists or the various TLAs. I think the TLAs are ahead on this one. We will know that they have won this particular contest when Jay leno starts making jokes about the absurdity of their boogieman of the day. alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply Alan Olsen | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys. "In the future, everything will have its 15 minutes of blame."
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 12:35:57AM -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Well, that's about as nice an apology as I've ever seen on any list, let alone cypherpunks. Aimee's initial message deserves a response. (BTW there is a real Waco, Texas lawyer named Aimee Farr who is interested in these issues, though naturally we can't be certain our correspondent is that person.)
She asks for our thoughts on this: http://www.sociology.org/content/vol002.001/ling.html
Any paper that seriously quotes the Rimm "study" and R.U. Siris is suspect. [..]
Since the paper is so flawed, I'm not sure it's worth discussing at length. But, briefly, is crypto as threatening as witches were? Far from it. It -- and its derivative technologies, such as anonymity -- seems to be perceived more as a way to reclaim lost privacy rather than a new and unusual threat. In that sense, it is a conservative technology. (This could change, and certainly the intelligence community is hand-waving about terrorists again, but I doubt it'll have much luck.)
OTOH, there certainly has been another attempt by government to villify crypto users with the recent spate of articles on Osama bin Oceania and other terrorists supposed use of crypto and stego. The Red scare of the 50s was also to a large extent promoted and fanned into flame by elements of the government. While there isn't a "moral boundary crisis" amongst the general public about crypto, there is an attempt at "vilification" and "patterned labelling" of crypto users by the government. And many cypherpunks have predicted the government causing events similar to "crystallization of the crisis through a dramatic act" and "appropriation of the appropriate social apparatus and suppression of critique" of crypto users by the government. (However, few of those beleive that "and finally restoration of a normal situation" would then occur.) The paper doesn't mention the political aspects of either of its examples (another of it's flaws). If you can think of "mass hate" as a politically-motivated inflaming of the masses fears, then the steps that it describes are remarkably similar to the expected political response to crypto-anarchy. -- Eric Murray Consulting Security Architect SecureDesign LLC http://www.securedesignllc.com PGP keyid:E03F65E5
Declan said:
society has instead adopted and then accepted the Internet. It's difficult to be repulsed by something when you use it to share baby pictures with grandparents.
Yes, and we are starting to regulate the hell out of it. Outside of a generic "Internet" sense....crypto is viewed as more threatening -- not simply a conduit, but a means. The next domestic terrorist kaboom! is going to have "bought to you by crypto" stenciled all over it by the US guvmint. Our demographics don't speak of technosophisticates. It --
and its derivative technologies, such as anonymity -- seems to be perceived more as a way to reclaim lost privacy rather than a new and unusual threat. In that sense, it is a conservative technology.
I agree, but you yourself stated that the average American isn't that concerned about privacy and won't purchase privacy enhancing technologies. (In a general privacy sense, I don't see a lot of "privacy reclamation." I do see a lot of notice provisions -- the functional equivalent of placing 99% of Americans in a social-adhesion contract.) I don't think it's conservative. I think it is a new and unusual threat - to the majority of Americans. (This could change, and
certainly the intelligence community is hand-waving about terrorists again,
And the entertainment industry, a power-export, is right behind them. Already we have an attempt to make crime-by-crypto cause for enhanced punishment. Also, the guvmint is puppeting economic espionage/national security in terms of crypto-enabled pirating. Add in the terrorist-porn-crypto triangle... Smells like stigmatization to me. Of course, you have all watched this battle for many years, so you have a longevity of insight that I don't have. Probably just the same-ole-same-ole to you, while it seems more dramatic to me. -aimee.farr@pobox.com
At 5:00 PM -0600 2/11/01, Aimee Farr wrote:
Declan said:
society has instead adopted and then accepted the Internet. It's difficult to be repulsed by something when you use it to share baby pictures with grandparents.
Yes, and we are starting to regulate the hell out of it. Outside of a generic "Internet" sense....crypto is viewed as more threatening -- not simply a conduit, but a means. The next domestic terrorist kaboom! is going to have "bought to you by crypto" stenciled all over it by the US guvmint. Our demographics don't speak of technosophisticates.
Agreed. (I will not say "So? We've been saying this for years. See my "Four Horseman" point of 1992-3 or so.") Those who want crypto outlawed have been trumpeting crypto uses by terrorists, pedophiles, money launderers, and other thought criminals for the past decade. Nothing very new or interesting in the latest round, save that the New Team is now attempting to lay the groundwork for New Laws.
... I agree, but you yourself stated that the average American isn't that concerned about privacy and won't purchase privacy enhancing technologies. (In a general privacy sense, I don't see a lot of "privacy reclamation." I do see a lot of notice provisions -- the functional equivalent of placing 99% of Americans in a social-adhesion contract.) I don't think it's conservative. I think it is a new and unusual threat - to the majority of Americans.
Come on, Aimee, do some background reading. The "average American" is, and has long been, of two minds: -- "what have you got to hide?" and -- "none of your damned business!" Both views are present in most Americans. An observation I made here nearly a decade ago. I welcome your participation here, provided you don't rant about the list being "estrogen-deficient," but, really, these basic points are well-trod ground.
Of course, you have all watched this battle for many years, so you have a longevity of insight that I don't have. Probably just the same-ole-same-ole to you, while it seems more dramatic to me.
Ah, good to see you recognize the situation. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
At 10:16 PM -0600 2/10/01, Aimee Farr wrote:
Declan, I appreciate your bringing this matter to my attention. My sincere apologies to both you, the cypherpunk community and subscribers. My comments were tongue-in-cheek, a friendly remark regarding Choate's stealth-linkage, and his remarks toward women's undergarments, which I found humorous. My comment in regard to "pointy questions" was an attempt to give any respondents a wide berth in their replies, in recognition of the fact I could be asking the wrong questions, and was receptive of any insight.
It sounds like it may be an alien.
It was also a reference the number of mysterious queries that flow across the list. My reference to Gentlemen was also not meant disrespectfully, but as a subtle query.
Bizarre.
Nevertheless, I came across as abrasive and offended members of this forum. _Ladies_ & Gentlemen, you have my apologies for both my breach of decorum and disrespect. Such was certainly not my intention.
We should kill it before it multiplies. No human being speaks in such a stilted, phony way.
You all have my admiration and respect, which is why I posed my questions to this distinguished group. (I am preparing to debate these issues in a private and hostile forum against experienced opposition. With a few notable exceptions, like Declan, certain viewpoints and experiences are under-represented in traditional source banks.)
"Captain, my source banks indicate abnormal readings. I suggest we disconnect immediately."
Excuse my long-windedness. I am trying to convey my intent and sincerity, and make a public, searchable record of my disrepute, my Declan-bitchslap and my apology; not to make excuses for my inappropriate, and inexcusable behavior.
This chick can be for real. It must be another troll. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
At 09:49 PM 2/10/01 -0800, Tim May wrote:
Nevertheless, I came across as abrasive and offended members of this forum. _Ladies_ & Gentlemen, you have my apologies for both my breach of decorum and disrespect. Such was certainly not my intention.
We should kill it before it multiplies. No human being speaks in such a stilted, phony way. [...] This chick can be for real. It must be another troll.
Hmm. I just responded to Aimee's message, and so I may have just been trolled. But I rise to the defense of human sentience here: I don't think an AI would have bothered to ask us about such an inane sociological tract... Another theory is that Aimee actually thinks that all cypherpunks subscribers are pleasant, decent, and reasonable people who should be treated politely. I'm sure folks -- is Choate around? -- will disabuse her of this notion straightaway. -Declan
At 1:03 AM -0500 2/11/01, Declan McCullagh wrote:
At 09:49 PM 2/10/01 -0800, Tim May wrote:
Nevertheless, I came across as abrasive and offended members of this forum. _Ladies_ & Gentlemen, you have my apologies for both my breach of decorum and disrespect. Such was certainly not my intention.
We should kill it before it multiplies. No human being speaks in such a stilted, phony way. [...] This chick can be for real. It must be another troll.
Hmm. I just responded to Aimee's message, and so I may have just been trolled. But I rise to the defense of human sentience here: I don't think an AI would have bothered to ask us about such an inane sociological tract...
Another theory is that Aimee actually thinks that all cypherpunks subscribers are pleasant, decent, and reasonable people who should be treated politely. I'm sure folks -- is Choate around? -- will disabuse her of this notion straightaway.
On my planet, people talk to each other in a pleasant, decent, and reasonable way by actually _talking_ to them. That is, by listening, responding, making points, etc. In particular, when the arrive on new lists they spend a few days determining who is who and what is what. They don't spew stilted jargon to lists which they are new to. I still vote that we find our where it lives and kill it before it multiplies. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
No human being speaks in such a stilted, phony way.
No. I am a woman of few talents, however, to my dismay, it seems this is one of them. My comments were sincere. I am just sorry that my prose is inadequate.
On my planet, people talk to each other in a pleasant, decent, and reasonable way by actually _talking_ to them. That is, by listening, responding, making points, etc. In particular, when the arrive on new lists they spend a few days determining who is who and what is what.
Yes. However, I've been here a while. The dynamics of this community is somewhat difficult to grasp, and I can only beg your understanding of the same.
They don't spew stilted jargon to lists which they are new to.
Yes. This was a grievous error. I am new, and obviously used inappropriate, and possibly offensive jargon, in addition to my tasteless introduction.
I still vote that we find our where it lives and kill it before it multiplies.
No. I can get myself "fixed," if necessary, so as to render any killing-proposition moot. Alternatively, my whereabouts are a matter of public record. aimee.farr@pobox.com Aimee E. Farr Law Office Of Aimee E. Farr 5400 Bosque, Suite 675 Waco, Texas 76710-4418 254.751.0030 | 751.0963(fax)
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Aimee Farr wrote:
Yes. However, I've been here a while. The dynamics of this community is somewhat difficult to grasp, and I can only beg your understanding of the same.
One of the crucial things needed to understand what goes on cypherpunks is that about three-quarters of the people see half or less of the posts. Having set up spamfilters adequate to give the list a reasonable S/N, you wind up having cut out a substantial fraction of the signal. Another crucial thing needed to understand what goes on cypherpunks are that certain of the regulars are trolls and/or cranks, and will say utterly outrageous things simply in order to "tweak" the presumed eavesdroppers or scare away people whom they regard as too timid to be worth talking to anyhow. It's best interpreted as performance art after the style of Andy Kaufmann. Regarding the paper you referred us to: While the author has come up with a lot of references as quotes to cite, few or none of them bear directly on the central theme of his paper. He presents a number of people who have a number of interesting things to say, some of them even on topic, but NO research or study that supports his central point of electronic communications as a first cause for the development of mass hate. A vehicle, sure. But not a first cause. And there's nothing really unique about it as a vehicle. Television, in my opinion, is far more dangerous in that regard, due to having fewer available channels. With TV, it takes only a very few people to decide that the airwaves should all be saturated with the same lopsided viewpoints. The internet, by comparison, is chaos. People uninterested in hate will find no reason whatsoever to visit hate sites, and since virtually everything is available (see http://www.bonsaikitten.com/ or http://www.thecorporation.com/oneoffs/96/kittyporn/ for examples of how weird it can get out there) a call to hate can be made by anoyone, but will attract no attention outside the limited community that has self-selected as being a priori interested in it. Even the relatively small set of people who are interested in hate find themselves spoiled for choice; Name any group of people, and you can find dozens of hate-mongers calling for their extermination on the web. In this environment, it is virtually inconcievable that any *one* hate ideology should ever become the dominant hate ideology -- this breaks up the process described in the paper at the "identification of villains" stage. As to the "moral boundaries" issue, I'll have to ask my girlfriend's husband about that - his dissertation was about what musical styles evolve in cultures whose moral boundaries are in conflict or change. Bear
At 04:16 PM 2/12/01 -0800, Ray Dillinger wrote:
As to the "moral boundaries" issue, I'll have to ask my girlfriend's husband about that - his dissertation was about what musical styles evolve in cultures whose moral boundaries are in conflict or change.
That sounds like an interesting diss, I wonder if he's willing to share? Reese
At 04:16 PM 2/12/01 -0800, Ray Dillinger wrote:
As to the "moral boundaries" issue, I'll have to ask my girlfriend's husband about that - his dissertation was about what musical styles evolve in cultures whose moral boundaries are in conflict or change.
That sounds like an interesting diss, I wonder if he's willing to share?
He's obviously willing to share. Note the "My girlfriend's Husband" bit. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** "As someone who has worked both in private industry and in academia, whenever I hear about academics wanting to teach ethics to people in business, I want to puke."--Thomas Sowell.
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 04:16:33PM -0800, Ray Dillinger wrote:
Even the relatively small set of people who are interested in hate find themselves spoiled for choice; Name any group of people, and you can find dozens of hate-mongers calling for their extermination on the web. In this environment, it is virtually inconcievable that any *one* hate ideology should ever become the dominant hate ideology -- this breaks up the process described in the paper at the "identification of villains" stage.
Interesting point. I fear you're too optimistic, but it does seem as though currently the groups with the dominant hate-mongering ideology seem like imports from meatspace instead of homegrown. The anti-Bonsai Kitten activists are a closer call, but they've been as about as effective as Democrats arguing for a tax hike. -Declan
At 12:40 PM -0600 2/9/01, Aimee Farr wrote:
Gentlemen[*]:
[*]appearances suggest an absence of participatory estrogen in here.
Females are free to join this list. Some have joined in the past. "On the Internet, no one knows you're a bitch." Sorry that you think our list is lacking in "participatory estrogen." But, then, you're probably the type to complain to about what you perceive as domination by whitemales. Tell you what, sistah, teach the brothers to read and maybe in 15 years we'll have more "posters of color." Frankly, folks like you have earned extermination. Strong crypto will make this possible. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
The ALPHA Male said:
"On the Internet, no one knows you're a bitch."
Yes. A profound statement, and one that I have no quarrel with.
...think our list is lacking in "participatory estrogen."
Yes. However, what it lacks in estrogen, it is making up for in testosterone. In truth, my comment was directed toward any women lurking about.
But, then, you're probably the type to complain to about what you perceive as domination by whitemales.
No. Quite the opposite. aimee.farr@pobox.com Aimee E. Farr Law Office Of Aimee E. Farr 5400 Bosque, Suite 675 Waco, Texas 76710-4418 254.751.0030 | 751.0963(fax)
At 12:40 PM -0600 2/9/01, Aimee Farr wrote:
Gentlemen[*]:
[*]appearances suggest an absence of participatory estrogen in here.
Females are free to join this list. Some have joined in the past.
"On the Internet, no one knows you're a bitch."
No, on the internet *EVERYONE'S* a bitch. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** "As someone who has worked both in private industry and in academia, whenever I hear about academics wanting to teach ethics to people in business, I want to puke."--Thomas Sowell.
participants (9)
-
Aimee Farr -
Alan Olsen -
Declan McCullagh -
Eric Murray -
petro -
Ray Dillinger -
Reese -
Tim May -
Tom