I wish that folks sending to this list would realize this new world exists, as much as it sucks, and spend a bit more time double checking before posting anything alarmist. In particular, there have been several recent false alarms regarding netscape security sent to this list and others. While I don't want to sweep real security holes under the rug, I think it hurts both cypherpunk and netscape interests for false claims to be coming out of this list.

I completely agree that the reporters on this list make things very difficult and people do need to be very careful about posting things which will get misinterpreated by reporters.. but-- This list is -not- an "announcement" list. If I see a potential bug, I want other cypherpunks to tell me whether I am onto something or not, so I would post. If some idiot reporter takes that and writes an article saying "XXX has a hole" that is -EXTREMELY BAD REPORTING-. I understand though, that we can't control what the reporters say and how they interpret what we say. It is very important to word your posts carefully such that when you post a bug a reporter won't think that they should write an article on it until it is verified. It's very sad, though, that we have to be very careful about what we post now because of the media attention. I would prefer if the list could just be a forum where we can discuss things, but that is not the case.

Just to make things clear, I'm not an official spokesperson for Netscape and anything sent to this list is my personal opinion.

As if that is going to help when a reporter sees your post. "Jeff Weinstein, Electronic Munitions Specialist at Netscape, said, 'XXXX'" -- doesn't put you down as "spokesperson for netscape", and doesn't contain any factual errors, but is damn misleading and makes it sound like you are speaking for Netscape... I guess I'm rather lucky being in charge of a sole proprietorship-- there isn't very much difference between me speaking for myself and speaking for my business. (There are some differences, yes, but very small.) -- sameer Voice: 510-601-9777 Community ConneXion FAX: 510-601-9734 The Internet Privacy Provider Dialin: 510-658-6376 http://www.c2.org (or login as "guest") sameer@c2.org

In article <199510120347.UAA27336@infinity.c2.org>, sameer wrote:

I completely agree that the reporters on this list make things very difficult and people do need to be very careful about posting things which will get misinterpreated by reporters.. but--

This list is -not- an "announcement" list. If I see a potential bug, I want other cypherpunks to tell me whether I am onto something or not, so I would post. If some idiot reporter takes that and writes an article saying "XXX has a hole" that is -EXTREMELY BAD REPORTING-. I understand though, that we can't control what the reporters say and how they interpret what we say. It is very important to word your posts carefully such that when you post a bug a reporter won't think that they should write an article on it until it is verified. It's very sad, though, that we have to be very careful about what we post now because of the media attention. I would prefer if the list could just be a forum where we can discuss things, but that is not the case.

Folks: Don't lose heart completely that your discussions on this list are not being read carefully by some of the media. As a case in point, I'm a freelance magazine writer who has been lurking on this list for at least 6 months (although I do get behind at times due to the volume). My reason for doing so is to become familiar enough with crypto issues so I might be able to write intelligently about these at some point in the future. Bad or superficial reporting is just that. It is part of a writer's job to understand what he is writing about, or at least understand it enough to be able to accurately inform the uninformed about something. You shouldn't be too disheartened about mis-reporting regarding this list because there is definitely something you can do about it -- at least after the fact. There is nothing that makes a sincere writer squirm more than his getting his facts wrong or even inadvertently misinforming his readers. If someone mis-reports something which is discussed on the cypherpunk list, a letter to the editor clearly pointing out the factual error not only has a good chance of getting printed, but also places the writer in an uncomfortable position of having egg on his face with his colleagues, bosses, etc. And while this might not undo the damage done by the original article, the writer or reporter is subsequently likely to check his facts a lot more carefully when writing about the topic again (unless he or his editors have a hidden agenda). Which isn't to say that the writers and reporters who lurk here will necessarily agree completely with the general cypherpunk views regarding crypto-anarchy and other such matters. However, this is high quality mail list and the more that writers and reporters lurking here, the more chance there is that your views will be understood and given serious consideration. And those views will increasingly surface as at least _one_ point of view presented in media articles, whether they specifically mention cypherpunks or not. Worthwhile ideas, if a few people keep putting them out there, have a way permeating a culture in strange and sometimes almost untraceable ways. Or as Margaret Mead put it: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever does." ... back into lurk mode. -- Blake Harris