cypherpunk "Zen" victories

[Sandy Sandfort]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

I'm almost at a loss for words.  I have had my troubles with, and
suspicions of, "Vladimir Z. Nuri."  Right now, though, I don't
care if he is the DetMan or not.  His most recent posting, 
"cypherpunk `Zen' victories," was dead bang right on.  For those
of you who may have deleted it without reading it, I have 
included it below.  It's very, very good.

Hey, if it really is you, Larry, stay on the medication (or off 
it, as the case my be).


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


On Wed, 19 Jul 1995, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

> I was recently marvelling at how much the "cypherpunk agenda"
> is being advanced even in light of what would seem to be setbacks.
> Particularly in the area of anonymous remailers. We now have a very
> major article on remailers and Julf's setup in the NYT that portrays
> them in an unbiased, unhysteria-stricken mode. Also in the article,
> it quotes the police as regretting their falling victim to
> Scientology manipulation and investigating the remailer "without
> cause". A major officer is quoted as saying, roughly, "we are
> going to need a crime before we investigate in the future". 
> 
> Look what we got out of this: 
> 
> 1) incredible positive publicity for Julf,
> Hero of the Net 
> 
> 2) introduction of the concept of anonymous remailers
> to the layman 
> 
> 3) police awareness. increased reluctance to go on anonymous remailer
> witchhunts. advice to other police to do the same.
> 
> 4) only *one* address was compromised on Julf's system. a small price
> to pay for all this
> 
> 5) Time Magazine also did an article on Julf a few months ago and
> this compromise in identity. *astonishing* publicity.
> 
> All in all, I would say the effect was an overall "net positive".
> It reminds me of a zen-like saying, "sometimes you lose by winning
> and win by losing". It would seem on the face of it that  the
> Helsingius Affair was a debacle from the point of view  of pseudonymity.
> However I would consider it a extraordinary success. 
> 
> The major foes of pseudonymity have so far been misguided police forces 
> in Finland, who now say they resent the solicitude of the US into their own
> affairs, and would not be so eager to cooperate in the future;
> another foe is a radical religious cult that is finding its own
> set of 20th century heretics, and attempting to excommunicate them.
> In the meantime, with each exposure, the idea of anonymity and
> pseudonymity is gaining powerful friends.
> 
> Also, a long time ago a major foe of anonymity was Dick Depew. An
> article came out on him in the WSJ that made him look awfully
> silly.  He is roundly considered one of the more legendary net
> crackpots today. 
> 
> ===
> 
> I'd also like to point out that the recent Rimm job affair is
> another "net positive" for the net. Rimm has been so utterly
> thoroughly discredited and blackened by his own personality
> and background, as reported by Brock Meeks recently, it is 
> amazingly hilarious. Rimm has become the laughingstock of
> cyberspace in the way that Cantor and Siegal were
> 
> We could not have asked for a better setup for embarrassing
> and humiliating the media into realizing the core issues
> involving pornography on the internet. If someone did this
> intentionally, it would have been considered a brilliant
> trap. Time and DeWitt have been savaged by very reputable people, and 
> I'm sure they consider the article a fiasco from a credibility standpoint.
> Any magazine that covers pornography in cyberspace in the future
> will be very gunshy and will not be so flippant, if they can
> stand poking the hornet's nest at all.
> 
> ===
> 
> Another area is in the bills that are being introduced in congress.
> It would seem these are a fiasco from the point of view of
> those interested in cyberspace. But there are backlashes even
> in congress. Was it Markey that introduced a bill that made
> cyberspace off limits to future draconian legislation? All this
> also forces legislators to figure out what the hell they are dealing
> with, and they are finding out what their own authority in the 
> matter is. I think the wise ones may figure out that if they
> don't play nice, we may take our marbles away and go play with
> someone else. D.Frissell said something profound in his letter
> to the editor, "Congress thinks the Internet can be controlled.
> We who built it, and continue to build it, think it cannot be.
> It will be interesting to see who is right". His comparing it
> with the ideas in the declaration of independence, that "when
> a government no longer serves the people, they have a right to
> overthrow it", is extremely apropos in cyberspace, where it
> may be more possible than ever for those who desire freedom
> to make those who are apposed to it, completely irrelevant.
> 
> T.May suggest that we just give up the fight in congress, saying
> that bills can be introduced faster than we can fight them. I
> agree with the observation but not the conclusion. 
> Bills have a very hard time getting to be law.
> They are very fragile in initial stages, and at these points they
> can indeed be killed with a little pressure in the right spots.
> We are learning where those spots are.
> 
> At this point I think it is not in the interests of those promoting
> cyberspace to try to evade congress. So far, it has not proved itself
> to be completely hostile to the point of trying to shut down cyberspace
> to the degree it does not fit its own agenda. And as long as they
> are not outright enemies, some could be turned into powerful
> promoters. The idea of abandoning educating/influencing congress 
> entirely seems like a kind of unhealthy nihilism to me. There are
> allies in congress and there are people listening there. Their 
> unawareness seems amazingly proportional to the cluelessness of
> the general population about cyberspace (and I see extremely
> encouraging signs both are rapidly diminishing).
> 
> The bills seem to becoming more desperate and draconian in their
> language. This is a sign of fear and dread on the side that seeks
> to regulate bits. They are in a tricky position, because the more
> draconian the language, the less likely it is to be passed and
> taken seriously. People become suspicious and hypersensitive to
> the infractions. To a large degree, many parts in the government
> only gain their power through secrecy. As people become more aware
> of the power flow, they disrupt and seize it themselves. Every bill
> that has more desperate language is the other side revealing
> their secret agenda, to control thought, which I think reasonable 
> people are increasingly considering and recognizing as bogus
> and bankrupt.
> 
> Congress will eventually polarize into being generally promoting
> of cyberspace, or outrightly hostile to it. Cyberspace will
> inevitably escape its grip if congress goes in this direction. To use
> Zen analogies again, there is the idea that water is the most
> powerful force on the earth, because it simply flows around
> that which opposes it. I find that cyberspace is wholly analogous.
> In fact it seems to me that cyberspace would give Lao Tzu
> a whole new cuttingly apt metaphor for his philosophies!!
> 
> ===
> 
> So the next time that you rant about how some bill or another
> means the Death of the Net, or the police investigating a remailer
> means the downfall of cryptoanarchy, or a lousy article with a
> zillion distortions comes out, think again. The greatest cypherpunk
> victories are emerging through what would appear at first to be the 
> "blackest" moments.
> 
> viva la cryptoanarchy!!!
> 
> 
> ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
> \  / ~/ |\| | | |> |  : : : : : : Vladimir Z. Nuri : : : : <vznuri at netcom.com>
>  \/ ./_.| | \_/ |\ | : : : : : : ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/vz/vznuri/home.html
>