Re: Mailing list name

> In the light of recent developments concerning government cryptography
> initiatives, we might soon find ourselves innundated by working press.
> 
> Given this, I think that the name "cypherpunks" produces the wrong
> connotations -- it makes us sound like criminals when we are in fact
> people who are interested in expanding personal privacy with
> technology. Often, little things like this end up being of tremendous
> importance in the long haul.
> 
> I would propose changing the name of the mailing list to
> "cryptoprivacy" or something similar. It denotes what we are about in
> a way that mundane people understand better, and it portrays us in the
> proper light -- as people struggling to improve the prospects for
> personal freedom, not a bunch of "punks".
> 
> Perry

Perry, I'm absolutely stunned.  What next: should we all make sure we shave
every day (women: don't forget those legs and armpits!)?  Or make tcmay remove
the word "anarchy" and other ungood words from his .sig?  Anyone who feels
like talking to the press or lobbying her representatives (and I'm not
claiming that those tactics are either good or bad) can wear a suit, makeup,
a respectable haircut, or whatever--that's their decision.  I can understand
the need to confront this issue as a large and united group, and I suspect that
other groups like the EFF, CPSR, etc., are better for that purpose anyway.  You
don't need to mention that you're a "cypherpunk" when dealing with media or
government officials if you think that'll diminish your credibility or legitimacy.

It's easy to be idealistic when things are good.  At the _very first hint_ of trouble,
we shouldn't immediately cower and go straight (this may seem like an exaggeration,
but the name-change proposal strikes me as a dangerous first step).  Shit, we're not
even doing anything _illegal_.  Relax.

Love and Kisses,

   --Dave.

David Mandl says:
> > In the light of recent developments concerning government cryptography
> > initiatives, we might soon find ourselves innundated by working press.
> > 
> > Given this, I think that the name "cypherpunks" produces the wrong
> > connotations -- it makes us sound like criminals when we are in fact
> > people who are interested in expanding personal privacy with
> > technology. Often, little things like this end up being of tremendous
> > importance in the long haul.
> > 
> > I would propose changing the name of the mailing list to
> > "cryptoprivacy" or something similar. It denotes what we are about in
> > a way that mundane people understand better, and it portrays us in the
> > proper light -- as people struggling to improve the prospects for
> > personal freedom, not a bunch of "punks".
> > 
> > Perry
> 
> Perry, I'm absolutely stunned.  What next: should we all make sure we shave
> every day (women: don't forget those legs and armpits!)?  Or make tcmay remove
> the word "anarchy" and other ungood words from his .sig?

I notice, David, that you wear a tie when you come in to work in the
morning. (I happen to work with Dave.)

Why do you do this, in spite of your general dislike for imposed
standards? Because you want something out of your employer and feel
its better to put up with the minor inconvenience of wearing a tie.

Look, we can give people cryptography, or we can change their notions
of what "punk" means. Its not necessarily possible to do both at the
same time. I vote for keeping the world free, and putting up with
minor inconveniences in the meantime. I never liked "cypherpunks" in
the first place. I'm not a punk. I'm a reasonable person. Reasonable
people want the world to be free -- its not just a "punk" viewpoint.
We want people to have privacy via cryptography. Something like
"cryptoprivacy" seems like a better reflection of who we are.

Perry