Re: Cypherpunks Press release

I guess you all know how much I hate this "who will be our spokesman?"
thread, but my opinion has been explicitly asked, so I will again comment.
Hopefully, adding a few new points.

At 6:55 AM 9/26/95, Craig Hubley wrote:

>Damn fine idea, but how do a bunch of (p)anarchists choose a mouthpiece ?
>Should we assign someone to be 'our' lawyer ?
>
>I'd volunteer to be 'spokespunk', I've certainly been interviewed for TV and
>print enough, and know how to handle and present myself to the press, but if
>this is considered an 'honor' rather than a 'pain in the ass and potential
>legal lightning rod' then I'd like to suggest someone with a longer pedigree
>who has been writing more code lately take it on.  Tim ?

I've turned down several recent chances for interviews, for these reasons:

1. I feel the people doing the work should be interviewed, not just someone
who has some visibility (whatever mine might be). If PGP is the issue, then
they should talk to those working on PGP. If anonymous remailers are the
issue, etc. If, by some chance, they are interested in things I have
directly worked on or written extensively about, then maybe they should
interview me.

(Although for other reasons I refused to have my name attached to the cover
story in "Information Week" about "Internet Theft," BlackNet, etc.)

2. Location, location, location! The media foci are Washington, New York,
and San Francisco, at least for our area of interest. Occasional forays
into Austin, Miami, L.A., etc. This is where the taped interviews are done.

Several "crews" recently in SF wanted "sound bites" and "video bites" from
people like me. I refused, pointing out the wastefullness of my time in
driving 100 miles over mountain roads to SF, fighting parking problems,
waiting around, and ending up with a 7.89 second clip of me saying
something scripted.

(In February I stupidly agreed to travel to LA for a filming of a BBC show
about encryption. Left at dawn, drove to San Jose, flew to LA, took shuttle
to Hollywood, waited around for several hours while crew finished taping
Alvin and Heidi Toffler, set up my laptop, was interviewed by show's
producer, agreed at her repeated prodding to say "I am a Cypherpunk." Got
back to my house at midnight. Guess what they used? The stupid line "I am a
Cypherpunk" and maybe about 20 seconds of other random comments. This is
what we face, as other high tech shows I see have the same disjointed,
out-of-context flavor.)

The point? These "journalists" are tuned to looking for catchy quotes, all
the more so on video than in print. Text journalists can handle complex
themes much better than video reporters can, for many and oft-discussed
reasons.

(Even more disgusting than this was a more recent appearance of a BBC film
crew at a Cypherpunks meeting. They wanted to "stage" the news, to have the
meeting discuss a 2-year-old topic, because that's what their script called
for. I got up and left, as did several other people. I haven't seen this
BBC show, but I gather from a URL that this is the one that has
"performance art" examples of crypto....)

Any "spokesman" needs to be easily accessible when they need a "filler
quote," or a "reaction quote."

However:

3. THERE IS NO SPOKESMAN, THERE IS NO CENTRAL OFFICE, THERE IS NO BOARD OF
DIRECTORS!

With no organization, no office, no coordination, we cannot "feed the media
machine" the way it expects to be fed.

Nor can we "elect" such folks. I didn't help start this list--not that this
gives me more moral sway--in order that J. Random Volunteer will start
speaking for "our beliefs" or will start explaining "our goals" and "our
plans."

Far better that journalists like Steven Levy and John Markoff subsribe to
the list, or to condensations by people like Eric Blossom, and then deal
directly with the experts in some area. Thus, on the latest Netscape flaw,
they would contact Ray Cromwell directly, not deal with the press releases
written by J. Random Volunteer.

Anarchy is part of our charm. More importantly, part of our theme.

Face it, we don't have a press office, we don't have staffing, and--most
importantly--there is no one out there who speaks for me. A spokesman for
the Cypherpunks is an oxymoron.

--Tim May


---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
Corralitos, CA              | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^756839      | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

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

Hello cypherpunks@toad.com
  and tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)

tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May) wrote:

> I guess you all know how much I hate this "who will be our spokesman?"
...

It seems to me that there are two viewpoints, 
  * a spokesman would be useful, and
  * a spokesman cannot be appointed due to lack of org

Which both seem to be true to me (they are *not* contradictory, only
the consequences are).


How about this idea: I remember once seeing some piece on some TV
personality (sorry, don't remember who, long time ago) who was
interviewed by fax. The jounalist sent questions to him, and some
time later received answers.

All that is needed then is someone with a fax machine to volunteer
to receive the fax, type it in and summarise the response afterwards
(noting points on which there was disagreement, and who disagreed
in what way).

...
> I've turned down several recent chances for interviews, for these reasons:
> 
> 1. I feel the people doing the work should be interviewed, not just someone
> who has some visibility (whatever mine might be). If PGP is the issue, then
...

Except PGP skill doesn't equal PR skill, not to mention that there
might be a geographical, time-zone or language barrier.

Sometimes having a separate PR person is useful, even if it does
tend to lead to the moronic statements salesdroids are infamous for.
With care, this problem can be minimized.

...
> 2. Location, location, location! The media foci are Washington, New York,
> and San Francisco, at least for our area of interest. Occasional forays
> into Austin, Miami, L.A., etc. This is where the taped interviews are done.
...

Not all PGP is done in those areas. You might want to have a SpokesPunk
near a focus to avoid having to get the people who actually do the work
to one of the abovementioned foci.

...
> The point? These "journalists" are tuned to looking for catchy quotes, all
...

It's in our interest to give them such catchy quotes, no?
Unless it would destroy us, of course...

...
> With no organization, no office, no coordination, we cannot "feed the media
> machine" the way it expects to be fed.

Only problem is, does anyone know of any other way to get our
ideas to be accepted by Joe Sixpack?

...
> Far better that journalists like Steven Levy and John Markoff subsribe to
> the list, or to condensations by people like Eric Blossom, and then deal
...

But then wouldn't that journalist act as a SpokesPunk?

Would you support such a jounalist writing about Cypherpunks?

What is the essential difference between a jounalist writing an
article and a volunteer writing a press release?

> Anarchy is part of our charm. More importantly, part of our theme.
...

A well-written press release could reflect that.

For example, some points could be presented in two ways (perhaps
even contradictory) with full attribution of who wrote which view.

Those who oppose the whole idea could be noted in the press release :-)
Unless they object to that in which case they wouldn't be.


Yes, No, Maybe? Definite Maybe?

Jiri
- --
If you want an answer, please mail to <jirib@cs.monash.edu.au>.
On sweeney, I may delete without reading!
PGP 463A14D5 (but it's at home so it'll take a day or two)
PGP EF0607F9 (but it's at uni so don't rely on it too much)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i

iQCVAwUBMGzxJCxV6mvvBgf5AQF1owP9GwgbLK1/HCq+iRKqw42q5Y6Kzbtmyda1
YJwblubOWacbVER2aURAN3m51MCsTXreuLxSbcm9dgP4Zk2071yZFGa7D2OF7dtS
pkfa5k1pn2v1EYplTvgJhAdTVJGqJ3sPc1VCIIWaRazeJjS0zA4d9rHmJWXb5DXp
6Hz8CbDw4UA=
=th3o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

C'punks,

On Sat, 30 Sep 1995, Jiri Baum wrote:

> It seems to me that there are two viewpoints, 
>   * a spokesman would be useful, and
>   * a spokesman cannot be appointed due to lack of org
> 
> Which both seem to be true to me . . .

Well, neither seems true to me.  I don't see how, in the first
analysis, a spokesman would be useful to ME.  I am a Cypherpunk
by virtue of being on the mailing list, but I doubt most, and
certainly not all, list members would agree with everything I 
believe about privacy, encryption, freedom and the government.
I know I don't believe in a lot of the stuff I read here.  Why
would any of us want a spokesman other than themselves?  So I
ask, "useful" to whom?

Second, the reason a spokesman cannot be appointed is not due
to lack of [an?] organization, but rather the lack of any
unifying creedo or statement of belief.  Had the list founders
said, "Cypherpunks is a list for people who believe X, Y and
Z.  Sign-up if you are one of us."  Then we might have an
"official" viewpoint which a spokesperson could help
articulate.  They didn't, we don't and, frankly, that's the
way I like it.

You want to express your views to the press?  Knock yourself
out.  You want to call yourself a "Cypherpunk"?  No one will
stop you.  You want to characterize what other Cypherpunks
say and believe?  You might say something I disagree with,
but again, no one will stop you.  (Of course, they may counter
your free speech with some free speech of their own, but that's
the name of the game.)

Yours in anarchy,


 S a n d y

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

> 
> Except PGP skill doesn't equal PR skill, not to mention that there
> might be a geographical, time-zone or language barrier.
> 
> Sometimes having a separate PR person is useful, even if it does
> tend to lead to the moronic statements salesdroids are infamous for.
> With care, this problem can be minimized.

	In which case the person in question can hire their own PR
person. If Community ConneXion had the resources, we would hire a PR
person, because I would rather spend my time writing code and
implementing anonymous systems than writing press releases and talking
to reporters.

> 
> Only problem is, does anyone know of any other way to get our
> ideas to be accepted by Joe Sixpack?

	I don't expect The Mythical Joe Sixpack to accept my views.

> What is the essential difference between a jounalist writing an
> article and a volunteer writing a press release?

	The difference between "speaking for" and "speaking about"

-- 
sameer						Voice:   510-601-9777
Community ConneXion				FAX:	 510-601-9734
An Internet Privacy Provider			Dialin:  510-658-6376
http://www.c2.org (or login as "guest")			sameer@c2.org

earlier I advocated a press release mechanism, and this is getting
flamed to smithereens by the more libertarian/cryptoanarchists
elements of the group, as I predicted (but geez, accusing me
of *deliberately* trying to start a flamewar here really hurts
my feelings! if I were really that mischievous, the meager return would
be quite an insult to my expertise.. <g>).

however this is entirely a matter of phasing of the question.
I am *not* advocating that someone be elected the spokesman, that
everyone agrees on what he says, that we all agree it is our
"official representation" etc. and I thought I made this clear.
(oops, I used that "we" word again, my humble apologies. just pretend
that I'm talking to my tentacles if you object.)
I do believe these are valuable attributes of groups and can 
help knit cohesion and help determine meaningful agenda 
(people here sometimes complain about the lack of focus or
of conquest, and do you need any clue as to *why* there is a lack
of this?) but I will not promote it where it is not relevant (or
at leas, not welcomed).

what I had in mind was a more FAQ-like cypherpunks document, with a
list of who considers themself a cypherpunks contributer, or just
someone who is willing to be a listed expert on a topic for media
inquiries. all the time, someone just sits down and writes a FAQ for 
a newsgroup, yet there was no "official" appointment.

if a FAQ is continually updated, it becomes very much like a press release. 
a question on the list might be, "what exactly did the cypherpunks discover 
about netscape? what is the seriousness of this flaw?" etc.  in this way the 
questions become virtually identical to what the media would inquire. and in
a sense every newsgroup's FAQ is almost like a "press release" for
everyone in the newsgroup. but this also shows why a FAQ is almost invariably
*extremely* time consuming and a herculean task to compile/update involving
huge numbers of man-hours the refined, final product does not convey.

I am advocating that individuals here come up with a FAQ. there are excellent
web sites, but not a simple FAQ of this group. I also encourage competing
FAQs at first. this happens all the time in newsgroups, and they eventually
merge or cover different topics.

the FAQ topic has been discussed here often, and everyone agrees it 
is a pretty good idea, and someone should "just do it" if they want to.
I guess what I'm pointing out (beyond the usual noise on the subject)
is that if anyone wants to have cypherpunk
press releases, that energy is better channelled into a FAQ. it is a
definite vacuum that would beneficially be filled, IMHO. (the TCM 
cyphernomicon, while admirable, is not really a FAQ imho..)

I am *not* advocating that (or rather, I say that we *should not*) 
vote on a FAQ writer, decide what is the *official* FAQ for the group 
if there are competing ones, bar or *discourage* some people from 
creating a FAQ, etc.

what I want to point out is that the FAQ is a model by which a 
very anarchic group of people can come to a definite document by
which they communicate their "findings" and their concerns, and
everything else that occupies their brains daily. this happens
through the FAQ writer as a conduit. in a sense, the FAQ writer
is the unappointed "spokesman" for the group. he wins approval
through the gradual process of people using the document and not
through any other means.

another alternative that actually seems to be enjoying some success
is for individual cypherpunks to issue press releases pertaining to 
their own specialty. i.e., "so-and-so at company X announced that
they would be doing so-and-so in conjunction with the cypherpunks".
again, how can anyone object to this if there really is no such
thing as a "cypherpunk group"? their press release certainly can't
be in conflict with something that doesn't exist.

the sword cuts both ways, although the rabid elements on this list 
would rather not admit it: if no one is a cypherpunk, if there is
no "official" goal or leader, if the term is not owned by anyone,
then anyone can define "cypherpunk" to be anything they want, and 
do anything they like under that title. as soon as you say, "well,
they're not a cypherpunk if so-and-so", well, your pretty much violating
your own premise: that there is no such thing as a "cypherpunks group"
or "official agenda".

it seems to me that the opposition to group organizing etc. in this
group is related to something else: the idea that the most valuable
conquests come from individual tinkerers who are not part of any
"group", who pursue their own ideas at the ignorance or hostility of
the rest of "society" (another cypherpunk 4-letter word, of course).

this is related to the idea of doing things in secret, too. "the most
valuable projects are those that are kept secret, pursued by only one
or a few, and then unleashed on the world all at once." these are 
interesting and enticing ideas, and I don't deny them to some degree
(there are many famous historical examples, such as arguably Tesla,
Ramanujan, Fermat, Archimedes, etc.), but it is also true, IMHO, that 
there are certain things that cannot be accomplished
without a certain degree of organization and cooperation among many
elements.. (well, again a cryptoanarchist heresy, but hell, I'm pretty
good at those). but fortunately a FAQ does not require the latter, although
it can benefit immensely from it (the sci.crypt FAQ has a group of
collaborating writers, as to many other FAQs).


--Vlad Nuri

I favor a FAQ, but only if each individual answer is attributed to a
specific person and others can answer the same question with possibly
a contradictory answer (but may not refer to the others' answer, that
just makes it quoting and flaming).  Perhaps organized as a hypertext.
Everyone has an HTML browser now, right ?
-- 
Craig Hubley                Business that runs on knowledge
Craig Hubley & Associates   needs software that runs on the net
mailto:craig@hubley.com     416-778-6136    416-778-1965 FAX
Seventy Eaton Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4J 2Z5

"Vladimir Z. Nuri" writes:
> earlier I advocated a press release mechanism, and this is getting
> flamed to smithereens by the more libertarian/cryptoanarchists
> elements of the group, as I predicted (but geez, accusing me
> of *deliberately* trying to start a flamewar here really hurts
> my feelings! if I were really that mischievous, the meager return would
> be quite an insult to my expertise.. <g>).

So you admit that you are, in fact, Detweiler. As if there was
any doubt.

> what I had in mind was a more FAQ-like cypherpunks document,

There is nothing wrong with Tim's document, which already exists.

Perry