Fellow Cyphers, Eric Hughes contributed:
I applaud the Clinton administration for making itself available via email. I do not think it advisable, however, to send a single cypherpunks letter. Rather I urge all interested parties to compose their own letters, and send them in separately.
and also:
3) Be brief. If you cannot summarize your argument into a single paragraph, neither will the reader of the mail. The mail system is already overloaded, and concision indicates politeness.
These appear to be contradictory statements. I believe that sending a powerful concise letter _together_ makes it more likely that it will be read, and even more likely that it will be responded to. Otherwise, we're just a bunch of nutty "individuals." On the other hand I am repenting my suggestion that we _might_ include anything political in our missive. This was ill-concieved on my part and I have now "engaged my brain" (it's also not 4 am, heh-heh) and agree with various other contributors that our message should be unidirectional and very brief. I don't think it should be "cutesy" however, as much as I personally enjoyed Marc Ringuette's "bit" suggestion #2:
Dear President Clinton, Freedom for the bits! We will not rest until each bit is free to determine its own natural orientation without outside coercion. The good news is, you don't need to do anything at all; merely get out of the way of the free market, and the bits will free themselves. Best regards, The Cypherpunks (Anarchist Subgroup).
Basically I like the underlying idea here (the track of allowing 'natural orientation without outside coercion'), but I'd avoid the "anarchist" tendencies, as they tend to render an otherwise approcahable letter "void" for government bureaucrats perusing gigs of email to Bill & Co. Eric suggests that we:
Stress privacy, and technological defenses thereto.
I agree. Especially the technological expertise side, as this is what differentiates us from the mass of other people crying about privacy.
2) Do not be paranoid. Do not rant. These are a sure ways to indicate that more money should be budgeted for public relations.
This is well-met. I totally back off from my previous political slant in favor of getting _through_.
4) Write in standard English. Use a spelling checker, and use complete sentences.
What a concept. After reading a few months worth of mail on this list, I can only agree.
5) Offer to help. Offer to make timely review of proposed policies. If they accept your aid, keep your promises.
This is my favorite suggestion. Imagine if they gave us all jobs at the NSA. Heh-heh-heh. Now, I have a general question: what is the current status of the White House email capability as far as everyone can tell? Has anyone had a response yet, by email or snailmail? Is there a possibility that this IS a hoax and that we should just send paper mail instead? ddt
I said, in effect: -- Send your own mail, not from the group. -- Be brief; the system is overloaded. Dave responds:
These appear to be contradictory statements. I believe that sending a powerful concise letter _together_ makes it more likely that it will be read, and even more likely that it will be responded to. Otherwise, we're just a bunch of nutty "individuals."
The particular advice to send individual mail stems from the following method that organizations estimate demographics: "Count each letter as standing for the opinion of N people." Were we a well-known, well-respected organization, such as, say, ANSI, or IEEE, then a group letter carries weight. As it is, however, the cypherpunks are neither, and our goals, well, less than fully affirmed by the general public. Hence, I urge people to send individual letters. In our context many letters carry greater weight than one. In the same vein, I urge people to each compose a separate letter. Many copies of an identical letter are much less useful. I wrote:
Stress privacy, and technological defenses thereto.
This topic has many aspects. Writing on this topic will not mean a duplication of effort, merely a replication of concern.
I agree. Especially the technological expertise side, as this is what differentiates us from the mass of other people crying about privacy.
That bit about "crying about" is exactly what I wish to avoid. First of all, in cryptography relying on others to grant you privacy doesn't even work. And second, asking for help to allow us to help ourselves taps into deep currents in the U.S. culture.
On the other hand I am repenting my suggestion that we _might_ include anything political in our missive.
One of my own political principles is as follows: "If your issue becomes a partisan issue, then you've lost." It is much easier to convince all sides of a dispute of the same thing than to convince one side and have them convince the others. Eric
participants (2)
-
deltortoï¼ aol.com -
Eric Hughes