Regarding Mr. Nalbandian's Comments

Regarding some specific criticisms by Mr. Nalbandian:

[1] If Joe ComputerUser does not know how to use his computer for more
than word processing and playing games, at this point, he probably doesn't
NEED PGP. If he knows enough to realize what little privacy he actually
has, he will go looking for security. With luck, he will run into someone
who can steer him towards PGP...

[2] The purpose of this list is not to insure that everyone has a copy and
knows how to use PGP (though most of us would consider that a worthwhile
goal). As it has been said more and more often, 'Cypherpunks write CODE!'.
This is a discussion group about the practicality and implementation of
specific forms of cryptography and cryptographic applications (digital
money, key servers, etc). [ This is not to belittle the political
content of the group, though. ] Groups like the EFF are interested in
helping new users to the Internet learn all about it, and are doing a good
job of it so far. If you are that concerned about the masses not knowing about
cryptography, try sending a note to the EFF (with the caps lock OFF!) and
ask them to include a section on privacy, cryptography and PGP in the next
version of the Big Dummy's Guide To The Internet. It's a start.

[3] Sending badly composed rants to seven hundred people and then
publically posting a response to a private message is not the way to be
taken seriously.

-- 
==========================================================================
|  Michael Brandt Handler  |  Philadelphia, PA  |  <grendel@netaxs.com>  |
|            PGP 2.3a public key available via server or mail            |
==========================================================================
People who use Elm: if you know how to create a killfile for Elm, please
send me an email message telling how. Thanks.

Michael Brandt Handler writes:

> goal). As it has been said more and more often, 'Cypherpunks write CODE!'.

>

	You know, I keep hearing this- why is it that you all seem to think
that writing code is mutually exclusive from talking the politics of
cryptography? Is it so hard to do two things at one time??? I'm sorry, I
just don't get it..

-- Julie
_____________________________________________________________________________
Julie M. Albright
Ph.D Student
Department of Sociology
University of Southern California
albright@usc.edu
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

> Michael Brandt Handler writes:
> 
> > goal). As it has been said more and more often, 'Cypherpunks write CODE!'.
> 
> 	You know, I keep hearing this- why is it that you all seem to think
> that writing code is mutually exclusive from talking the politics of
> cryptography? Is it so hard to do two things at one time??? I'm sorry, I
> just don't get it..

	Julie, please reread this portion of my message.

GR> This is a discussion group about the practicality and
GR> implementation of specific forms of cryptography and cryptographic
GR> applications (digital money, key servers, etc). [ This is not to
						      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
GR> belittle the political content of the group, though. ] Groups like 
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	I read and enjoy both the coding discussions as well as the
political talk. They're not exclusive in any way.

-- 
==========================================================================
|  Michael Brandt Handler  |  Philadelphia, PA  |  <grendel@netaxs.com>  |
|        PGP 2.3a public key available via server / mail / finger        |
==========================================================================

I'm sorry I responded just now to Nalbandian's first spew before noticing
that he has stuffed my mailbox with another handful of non-germane
babble.  

Instead of wasting my time handing him good advice about better ways to
spend *his* time, I will simply say that the usual treatment here is
the correct one: /dev/null

phred

Boy am I embarrassed....

(1) I apologize to the list for again posting unintentionally
(that's twice now) -- I'm still learning EMACS, and I forget
that it automagically CC's the list more often than my old
mail system used to (which was never).

(2) I share "Fred Heutte"'s <phred@well.sf.ca.us> sentiments,
in spades, about responding before noticing additional spew...

(3) There's still hope that I'll learn eventually...

Julietta says:
> > goal). As it has been said more and more often, 'Cypherpunks write CODE!'.
> 
> 	You know, I keep hearing this- why is it that you all seem to think
> that writing code is mutually exclusive from talking the politics of
> cryptography? Is it so hard to do two things at one time??? I'm sorry, I
> just don't get it..

Its a matter of two things.

1) One can make the same political statements over and over (as we do)
   without much effect. Writing code can change the world. Therefore,
   writing code is much more worthwhile.
2) There are lots of places to talk about approximately this set of
   political views.

Its not a question of excluding politics -- its really more of a
question of giving primacy to action.

Perry

>	   You know, I keep hearing this- why is it that you all seem to think
>   that writing code is mutually exclusive from talking the politics of
>   cryptography? Is it so hard to do two things at one time??? I'm sorry, I
>   just don't get it..

To paraphrase Perry, the cypherpunks list assigns primacy to action.

The political discussions are meant to inform the design of the
software systems we're working on.  They do not stand alone, and as
soon as they do stand alone, they become irrelevant.

The Usenet newsgroup talk.politics.crypto is for political discussions
about cryptography of any sort whatsoever.

Eric

On Fri, 6 May 1994, Eric Hughes wrote:

> To paraphrase Perry, the cypherpunks list assigns primacy to action.

But one of the important things is that action is not JUST writing code.  
There are those of use who are unable to write good code (or, I suppose, 
any code at all) or do not comprehend the math of cryptography.  They are 
just as needed in the battle as those who compile.

Cypherpunks (the list) I believe has sorta become a combination of 
talk.politics.crypto and sci.crypt, and provides a uniqie opportunity to 
integrate both the coding adn the political sides into one cohesive 
fighting force.  The small number of (active) participants allows this to 
be done in a very intimate and (relatively) fast fashion.

This is a GOOD thing.

> The Usenet newsgroup talk.politics.crypto is for political discussions
> about cryptography of any sort whatsoever.

That assumes that people can get it...

____        Robert A. Hayden          <=> hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu
\  /__          -=-=-=-=-             <=>          -=-=-=-=-
 \/  /   Finger for Geek Code Info    <=> Political Correctness is
   \/  Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> P.C. for "Thought Police"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1)  GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
		       n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)

> > The Usenet newsgroup talk.politics.crypto is for political discussions
> > about cryptography of any sort whatsoever.

> That assumes that people can get it...

And that the noise level allows discussion.  Presently, by "killing"
LD and DS (both From and Subject fields), < %5 of postings make it thru.

     Dave Otto -- dave@gershwin.jta.edd.ca.gov -- daveotto@acm.org
 Consulting P/A "If I could do the math, I would have been an engineer."
       GAT: d++(-)@ -p+(---) c+++ l u++(-) e++/* m++(*) s-/+ !n 
            h---(*) f+ g+++ w+ t++ r+ y++(*)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


> Michael Brandt Handler writes:

> > goal). As it has been said more and more often, 'Cypherpunks write CODE!'.

> >

> 	You know, I keep hearing this- why is it that you all seem to think
> that writing code is mutually exclusive from talking the politics of
> cryptography? Is it so hard to do two things at one time??? I'm sorry, I
> just don't get it..

There are folks on the list who would disagree with me, but I'm inclined
to liken the "cypherpunks write code" phrase to the older "the personal
is the political" phrase (which I've heard most in connection with feminism)
and the "direct action" movements, principally in environmentalist and
animal-rights causes. I think of it as a reminder to focus on the practical
needs for crypto; and as a warning away from pure theory. It's also a way
to let knowledge from the sphere of practical application inform theoretical
discussions.

I see it as roughly parallel to the distinction between academics who talk
about revolution, and revolutionaries. :) Sometimes there's some crossover,
but frequently not. "Cypherpunks write code" encourages a crypto revolution
from the bottom up, not from the top down. (I'd say though, the Cypherpunks
list seems to function more as a Leninist avant-garde than a true "people's
uprising", as per Mr. Nalbandian's recent comments.) Public-key encryption
has been documented in open literature since 1978; but it wasn't until 1991
and the release of PGP that it was easily available to folks not relatively
fluent in both programming and math. "Cypherpunks write code" reminds us
that it shouldn't take 13 years to turn new developments into user-accessible
programs.

In any event, I don't think it should be interpreted as a slam against
non-programmers, but an exhortation to take some sort of practical action
to protect privacy; I mentally include the distribution of disks at PC Expo
and John Gilmore's FOIA requests within "writing code", for instance. To
me, it really means "don't just sit there! do something!", which can apply
to all of us, no matter what our expertise.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

iQCVAgUBLcqcN33YhjZY3fMNAQG5/QP/ecyLtR1dGLwvQN6emU82+PktOjIJDvyH
JQJiSgPZR12tFWpiQr86LQXVwao1qLH3VjDpT8bz9kHhKXxUYmOMwxiUVnvppLPu
WEta2F9WXl27UAq75VMH7MEtHY5RJ0Ap5Vle7qvfb2/XAx34nAG8RIR+Hec0rF8F
xkb9hdSUTdI=
=t5LS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----