Re: alt.whistleblowers

Some comments on alt.whistleblowers from an (up to now) lurker. In brief,
this strikes me as being a very foolish idea. 

In detail:

-- Does anyone really think this is going to have much of an effect on
   anything? My suspicion is that a forum providing unlimited ability
   for people to anonymously post undocumented accusations against 
   powerful people will be summarily ignored, not just by the targets
   of the accusations, but by everybody else with an actual life. There
   seems to be no discussion of the biggest weakness of this idea: the
   expected signal to noise ratio. This accomplishes nothing if it is 
   overrun by, say, Kennedy asassination loons. It doesn't seem wise to me
   for the Cypherpunks' first major public act to be something this
   pointless and ill-conceived.

Ok. Suppose I'm wrong about the above, and this thing works like people
seem to think it will.

-- The tools available to accomplish this task (PGP, remailers, anon servers)
   are certainly impressive, but I really don't think they're well developed
   enough yet to give cause for much confidence in taking on the government
   and the entire U.S. corporate sector in a frontal assault. 

-- Is this really in line with the purpose of the Cypherpunks? To quote from
   the charter

   "Cypherpunks write code.  They know that someone has to write code to
   defend privacy, and since it's their privacy, they're going to write
   it.  Cypherpunks publish their code so that their fellow cypherpunks
   may practice and play with it.  Cypherpunks realize that security is
   not built in a day and are patient with incremental progress."

   I like this paragraph, and what it says to me is that (a) people
   are, in the end, responsible for their OWN security and need to be made
   to realize this, and (b) PATIENCE is the most important prerequisite
   for success. Both of these principles are being violated by the
   hasty creation of alt.whistleblowers. This has nothing to do with
   enabling people to independently achieve data security, and it shows
   no patience whatsoever.

Wouldn't everybody be better served by quiet, patient development and
distribution of tools, instead of a huge juvenile "FUCK YOU!" to people
who could really care less? Let's not piss away a solid foundation with
cheap theatrics.

                                -- Will


"Getting people to fight by letting the force of momentum work
is like rolling logs and rocks. Logs and rocks are still when in a
secure place, but roll on an incline; they remain stationary if
square, they roll if round. Therefore, when people are skillfully
led into battle, the momentum is like that of round rocks rolling down
a high mountain -- this is force."

-- Sun Tzu


*** PGP PUBLIC KEY AVAILABLE BY FINGER

> Some comments on alt.whistleblowers from an (up to now) lurker. In brief,
> this strikes me as being a very foolish idea. 

Perhaps it is; this is why I'm sending it out for discussion instead
of just newgrouping it.

> -- Does anyone really think this is going to have much of an effect on
>    anything? My suspicion is that a forum providing unlimited ability
>    for people to anonymously post undocumented accusations against 
>    powerful people will be summarily ignored, not just by the targets
>    of the accusations, but by everybody else with an actual life. There
>    seems to be no discussion of the biggest weakness of this idea: the
>    expected signal to noise ratio. This accomplishes nothing if it is 
>    overrun by, say, Kennedy asassination loons. It doesn't seem wise to me
>    for the Cypherpunks' first major public act to be something this
>    pointless and ill-conceived.

Actually, it is more my act, which I decided upon based on memes
I received partially from this list; the cypherpunks, if they do
choose to support the idea, will do it individually; and, as yet,
I have not had the arrogance to make a public announcement to
the effect that the cypherpunks made this action.  My name only
is attached to this; no praise, no blame.

> Ok. Suppose I'm wrong about the above, and this thing works like people
> seem to think it will.

Well, it might not; there are a number of potential hurdles, like
the possibility that it will turn into a mindless narc fest; my
personal opinion as to this is that I would prefer to leave the
group unmoderated, but with an _option_ to moderate if the worst
occurs.  Of _course_ this will be abused, but I believe that it will
also be used.

This will provide an empirical basis for our principles.  Success
or failure will determine whether hypotheses need to be revised,
or if they do, in fact, have predictive capability.

> -- The tools available to accomplish this task (PGP, remailers, anon servers)
>    are certainly impressive, but I really don't think they're well developed
>    enough yet to give cause for much confidence in taking on the government
>    and the entire U.S. corporate sector in a frontal assault. 

Well, if people are careful, and don't log in to an anonymous server
_from_ an account with their name, but from an anonymous dataswitch,
all Bell or the Department of Housing and Urban Development would
know is that someone who works for them posted this anonymous message;
which they knew already.  Of course, anything beyond the first posting
would be tracable if someone really wanted to do it, but what would it
prove, unless they traced it to that person?  

Another possibility is to go primitive and use snailmail, digitize
images and data or type in by hand.  Without very specific reasons,
opening U S Mail is not condoned.

> -- Is this really in line with the purpose of the Cypherpunks? To quote from
>    the charter

>["Cypherpunks write code" paragraph from FAQ]

>    I like this paragraph, and what it says to me is that (a) people
>    are, in the end, responsible for their OWN security and need to be made
>    to realize this, and (b) PATIENCE is the most important prerequisite
>    for success. Both of these principles are being violated by the
>    hasty creation of alt.whistleblowers. This has nothing to do with
>    enabling people to independently achieve data security, and it shows
>    no patience whatsoever.

You may be right.  I may not be orthodox cypherpunk.  

However, with the proliferation of retroactive posting cancellation
of anonymous posts, I believe it is possible to be patient to so
great an extent that one calmly and rationally discusses a situation
until the moment when action would have been useful has passed; 
in other words, you've discussed battle strategy until the enemy's won.

> Wouldn't everybody be better served by quiet, patient development and
> distribution of tools, instead of a huge juvenile "FUCK YOU!" to people
> who could really care less? Let's not piss away a solid foundation with
> cheap theatrics.

Again, I believe that you _can_ be quiet and develop tools.  It
is good that this is being done by _somebody_.  

However, I take issue with your assertion that a formal Request
for Discussion, worded in a non-inflammatory manner, is a juvenile
"FUCK YOU!"  If you doubt this, check out the RFD when it appears
in news.announce.newgroups.  What little temperature was in it
was deleted; I spent about three hours implementing the suggestions
of others and cut the verbiage by a half.  

I do not see how this can damage what foundation we have;
essentially a few software packages and an ideology.

However, to protect from just this occurence, I did not present
my viewpoints as cypherpunk viewpoints in the announcement, merely
as my own.

The word 'cypherpunk' does not occur anywhere in the article.

If cypherpunks wish to discuss this group, why it would be a good
or bad idea, or if it would be better-named, it may be discussed.

If it is decided that the idea should be shelved, then so be it.

I, and we, shall bide our time, and create it as an alt.group
in the meantime.

Very likely, at least in the beginning, privacy will be provided
by the person who wishes to have it, and that person will take
responsibility for the consequence of his or her actions.

Check out the discussion.  Let the net decide.
----
Robert W. Clark
rclark@nyx.cs.du.edu   PGP signature available by mail or finger

>Some comments on alt.whistleblowers from an (up to now) lurker. In brief,
>this strikes me as being a very foolish idea. 
>   My suspicion is that a forum providing unlimited ability
>   for people to anonymously post undocumented accusations against 
>   powerful people will be summarily ignored, not just by the targets
>   of the accusations, but by everybody else with an actual life.

Mr. Kinney's comments annoy me tremendously. They bespeak a lukewarm,
lackadaisical, and wishwashy view of something of extreme importance.
Frankly, it bothers me that it has taken this long just to get the
whistleblower group going. I don't think anything is being accomplished
by delaying newsgroup creation.  It just gives people who are enemies
more time to mount a concerted attack against this new blip in the status quo.

Where is your trademark cypherpunk fanaticism, Mr. Kinney? Do you wear
a suit and tie and go to endless meetings debating the relative merits
of implementing a given policy? Where is your passion? Where is your
*impatience*?  Where is your frustration that nothing seems to be happening?

The point is that these things will start out unpolished and become
refined. But they don't become refined by people debating their
theoretical implications in a vacuum. They get refined when problems
*arise* from *use*.  That is the place where unforeseen merits and
demerits are discovered (the unanticipated ones discovered in practice,
I assure you, are always the most significant).  Julf's server is a
beautiful example of the evolution of an unrefined idea into a
practical and increasingly sophisticated reality.

It alarms me tremendously that word leaked out about the whistleblower
group at the Freedom and Privacy conference (attended by such
luminaries as e.g. D. Denning, and don't ask what the D. stands for);
and that a former C.I.A. official has ideas on how to filter out the
"noise". I find this quite nauseating.  The greatest inventions are not
the result of people who sought to reduce risks. It is precisely this
risktaking (and yes, somewhat cavalier attitude) that produces the breakthrough!

>   The tools available to accomplish this task (PGP, remailers, anon servers)
>   are certainly impressive, but I really don't think they're well developed
>   enough yet to give cause for much confidence in taking on the government
>   and the entire U.S. corporate sector in a frontal assault. 

We are all playing with toys right now in the hope that they become
entrenched and refined.  Which they will, inevitably! Because they are
good ideas! (Time is the universe's mechanism for rewarding good
ideas!)  Yesterday's Apple II is today's Quadra.  Paved roads started
out as rocky dirt paths, and in retrospect they look quaint, but they
progressed because they were well-trodden.  People just used them.  If
you think that new technology starts out any other way, then I'm
impressed with your naivete...

>-- Is this really in line with the purpose of the Cypherpunks? To quote from
>   the charter

well, let me put it this way--if it isn't virtually the essence of
Cypherpunkhood (challenging entrenched, ineffective, mediocre, bloated,
or even corrupt and sinister authority through revolutionary new
technology) then what is? What is your vision? Or do you prefer not to
have one because they are so inconvenient and uncomfortable to pledge
allegiance to, to nourish and sustain?  Because they force you to
rethink some of your most beloved and rooted prejudices? Because they
require such devotion and sacrifice?

> PATIENCE is the most important prerequisite
>   for success.

patience has its place *after* all possible means for advancement have
been employed. This `patience' thing of yours seems to me like a
euphemism for `chill out'.  Patience is for saints.  Impatience is for
humans. Agitation is for cypherpunks.

>Wouldn't everybody be better served by quiet, patient development and
>distribution of tools, instead of a huge juvenile "FUCK YOU!" to people
>who could really care less? Let's not piss away a solid foundation with
>cheap theatrics.

Is that your perception of this project? Do you think that the creation
of the newsgroup is equivalent to advocating that statement? Where do
you find such animosity? How is it that something so intrinsically
neutral such as creating a newsgroup be twisted into an act of evil
rebellion and subversion? Is it possible that you should be embarrassed
by reading a bit more into cypherpunks than is there? Is it possible
that you have some agenda we don't know about?

The whistleblower newsgroup will be quite like any other newsgroup.
There will be plenty of noise and unverifiable froth and fizz. We will
work toward trying to improve that content, but it is always a case of
`caveat emptor'. It is a ridiculously impossible ideal to attain of
having a group with only the `truth' posted.  We are not setting out to
replace the entire world government today (although, as for *tomorrow*...)

I think the freedom in posting is the very essence of the whistleblower
group. I think it might be interesting to promote the idea of different
groups, each with different levels of verifiability. The lowest level
would have completely unverified claims and *totally* free posting
(esp. anonymity). Higher groups would have more important mechanisms to
ensure the quality of the information (moderation, prerequisites to
posting, digital signatures, etc.)  I imagine that the verifiable and
meritorious claims would tend to "rise" to higher groups where people
with much higher reputations toss around the data.

(Actually, I can imagine all of Usenet of the future working like this,
with various `tiers' that people can pick at will. People into totally
rabid free speech can subscribe to the raw unfiltered stuff, and at the
other end of the spectrum, all the PC academics into diversity but no
offensiveness to sensitive sensibilities can subscribe to the groups
where a few happy-sunny-whee messages slip through a day...)

p.s. I hate to jab a self-admitted lurker so bluntly, but this reminds
me of Lincoln's advice that ``it is better to be silent and thought a
fool than to speak up and remove all doubt''... Mr. Kinney, maybe we
should call you back in a few years when everything is commercialized,
corporate, conservative, and soulless enough for your tastes.