Re: CYPHERPUNK considered harmful.

At 10:43 AM 9/13/95, Peter Trei wrote:

>                  "CYPHERPUNK" considered harmful
>
>     I would like to propose that we, the 'cypherpunks', are making a
>strategic error, which will make it far more difficult to achieve the
>goal we share.

Discussing some goals we might share, or ought to share, is certainly not
out-of-line. Indeed, this discussion has come up many times on this list,
though perhaps not much in the past year. (Those C coders do seem to be
having their way...:-} ).


>     Our error lies in our approach to encouraging the widespread use of
>crypto. It is an error of hubris - overweening pride.

I think many people here are doing a lot to encourage wide use of
encryption, remailers, etc. They write hooks to popular mail programs, they
give public talks, they fight against restrictions and regulations, and
they deploy new systems. That some folks have very occasionally mentioned
"Joe Sixpack" does not mean that much. in my opinion.

>
>     We too often think of ourselves as an elite - smarter and better in
>various ways to our non-cpunk neighbours. We refer to these others as
>'Joe Sixpack" and other such derogatary terms.
>
>     The problem is that in doing so we are marginalizing ourselves.
>
>     We call ourselves 'cypherpunks'. While this is derived from the SF
>term 'cyberpunk', consider the image we are creating for ourselves:
>
>     A 'punk' is a marginalized young adult, one who rejects the norms
>of his or her society, and takes delight in irking those around him with
>his or her rejection. The older of us will think of James Dean in 'Rebel
>Without a Cause', or Brando in 'The Wild One'. Later, you get images
>such as Peter Fonda in 'Easy Rider', and more recently, Sid Vicious and
>other icons of the 'punk rock' movement.

While I have had some qualms about the name, on balance I think it has been
good for us. After all, it's not as if _other_ groups don't already exist!
In particular, the British branch of Cypherpunks disliked the name
"Cypherpunks" so much that they used a different name for themselves, the
"U.K. Crypto Privacy Association." It doesn't seem to exist anymore, for
whatever reasons. But the name may have been a factor, at least.

Similarly, there's the Libertarian Party, with similar themes to our own,
the International Association of Cryptographic Research (or somesuch), and
even several nascent groups like "Terra Libre" and "DigitalLiberty" which
purport to have a similar focus to what we have. And of course there are
_several_ groups devoted specifically to lobbying for various sorts of
cyberspatial rights, laws, etc.: EFF, EPIC, CPSR, VTW, and the ACLU. All of
these groups have a different focus than we have. If I were to pick one
that matches Peter Trei's proposed organization, it would be the EFF. Thus,
I suggest Peter and others of like mind look into helping out the EFF in
its worthy causes. I mean no disrespect here to Peter's views, nor am I
suggesting he leave this list. Plenty of room for support of the EFF and
being on this list. I'm a member of the EFF, for example (though their
computer has me as "Tim Mat" for some reason).

But for some reason--draw your own conclusions--the Cypherpunks list has a
membership of something like 600-800 subscribers, more if you count folks
who subscribed for a while, or who read it in other places. I don't think
"Terra Libre" or "DigitalLiberty" are quite as successful and visible.

We fill a certain niche which is useful to have filled, a more radical
facet of things. If we didn't exist, or renamed ourselves "Concerned
Citizens for Cryptographic Protection," CCCP, then somebody would have to
_invent_ the Cypherpunks!

I addressed the issue of our name, pluses and minuses, in an early chapter
of my Cyphernomicon (http://www.oberlin.edu/~brchkind/cyphernomicon/):

2.4.10. "Where did the name 'Cypherpunks' come from?"
           + Jude Milhon, aka St. Jude, then an editor at "Mondo 2000,"
              was at the earliest meetings...she quipped "You guys are
              just a bunch of cypherpunks." The name was adopted
              immediately.
             - The 'cyberpunk' genre of science fiction often deals with
                issues of cyberspace and computer security ("ice"), so
                the link is natural.  A point of confusion is that
                cyberpunks are popularly thought of as, well, as "punks,"
                while many Cyberpunks are frequently libertarians and
                anarchists of various stripes. In my view, the two are
                not in conflict.
             - Some, however, would prefer a more staid name. The U.K.
                branch calls itself the "U.K. Crypto Privacy
                Association." <check this> However, the advantages of the
                name are clear. For one thing, many people are bored by
                staid names. For another, it gets us noticed by
                journalists and others.
             -
           - We are actually not very "punkish" at all. About as punkish
              as most of our cyberpunk cousins are, which is to say, not
              very.
           + the name
             - Crypto Cabal (this before the sci.crypt FAQ folks
                appeared, I think), Crypto Liberation Front, other names
             - not everybody likes the name...such is life

--------

Getting back to your suggestion that "we" change the name to something more
respectable. How could "we" do this, given that "we" are an effective
anarchy?

I can't imagine a vote on this, and the endless debates on what "we" ought
to call ourselves would be a waste of time.

Fortunately, there's an elegant solution: form your own group.

Form your own group, your own mailing list, with a catchy name, something
like "The Privacy Education Foundation," or "The American Civil Liberties
Union" (whoops, taken), or "The Society for the Preservation of
Cyberspatial Liberty."

Then announce it on our list, and elsewhere. People will vote with their
feet. If your "meme" is catching, your list will rapidly gain members.
Maybe this Cypherpunks list will even atrophy away.

Evolution in action. The market in action. A better approach than trying to
get the name and the charter changed.

--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."

On Wed, 13 Sep 1995, Timothy C. May wrote:

> >
> >     We too often think of ourselves as an elite - smarter and better in
> >various ways to our non-cpunk neighbours. We refer to these others as
> >'Joe Sixpack" and other such derogatary terms.
> >
> >     The problem is that in doing so we are marginalizing ourselves.
> >
> >     We call ourselves 'cypherpunks'. While this is derived from the SF
> >term 'cyberpunk', consider the image we are creating for ourselves:
> >
> >     A 'punk' is a marginalized young adult, one who rejects the norms
> >of his or her society, and takes delight in irking those around him with
> >his or her rejection. The older of us will think of James Dean in 'Rebel
> >Without a Cause', or Brando in 'The Wild One'. Later, you get images
> >such as Peter Fonda in 'Easy Rider', and more recently, Sid Vicious and
> >other icons of the 'punk rock' movement.
> 
> While I have had some qualms about the name, on balance I think it has been
> good for us. After all, it's not as if _other_ groups don't already exist!
> In particular, the British branch of Cypherpunks disliked the name
> "Cypherpunks" so much that they used a different name for themselves, the
> "U.K. Crypto Privacy Association." It doesn't seem to exist anymore, for
> whatever reasons. But the name may have been a factor, at least.

I agree with Peter's point... some of the core cypherpunks (I'll not
mention names) can be somewhat elitist, whether they mean to or not.  Not
that they don't have some reason to be...as Pat Farrell once told me the
cypherpunks mailing list is, to some degree, an IQ filter.  Many
cypherpunks have a firm reason for some self-indulgent pride.  However,
our goal (or, at any rate, _a_ goal) is to make crypto use ubiquitous,
and for this we must deal with the public at large in a, perhaps, more
diplomatic and user-friendly manner. 

<snip> 

8> 
> We fill a certain niche which is useful to have filled, a more radical
> facet of things. If we didn't exist, or renamed ourselves "Concerned
> Citizens for Cryptographic Protection," CCCP, then somebody would have to
> _invent_ the Cypherpunks!
> 

True, but if the majority of active participants see an alternative
agreeable to them, they may just switch and start calling themselves
something else.  If the list owner likes it and changes the name of the 
list, then what of the cypherpunks unwilling to change?  It would appear, 
then, that they would be the ones who would have to find somewhere else 
to go.

>            - We are actually not very "punkish" at all. About as punkish
>               as most of our cyberpunk cousins are, which is to say, not
>               very.

Anybody who reads the mailing list or the cyphernomicon knows this, but 
anyone hearing the name for the first time does not get this impression.

> 
> Getting back to your suggestion that "we" change the name to something more
> respectable. How could "we" do this, given that "we" are an effective
> anarchy?
> 
> I can't imagine a vote on this, and the endless debates on what "we" ought
> to call ourselves would be a waste of time.

Better than a vote (and more effective in western culture, where only 39% 
of the population votes anyway but just tends to go with the flow) is to 
propose an alternative, flat out, adopt it for yourself, and whoever 
prefers it will follow your lead.  If nobody likes it, then the 
cypherpunks are simply here to stay.

> 
> Fortunately, there's an elegant solution: form your own group.
> 
> Form your own group, your own mailing list, with a catchy name, something
> like "The Privacy Education Foundation," or "The American Civil Liberties
> Union" (whoops, taken), or "The Society for the Preservation of
> Cyberspatial Liberty."
> 
> Then announce it on our list, and elsewhere. People will vote with their
> feet. If your "meme" is catching, your list will rapidly gain members.
> Maybe this Cypherpunks list will even atrophy away.
> 
> Evolution in action. The market in action. A better approach than trying to
> get the name and the charter changed.
> 

My point is that you may not have to do all this.  This is a recurring 
thread on the list. . . if enough people feel the same way you do you 
could have the human resources effective for a cypherpunks "take-over".

As for myself, I don't think I would change. . . I actually _am_ a 
"long-haired wierdo".  I think a slightly more conservatively named 
organization similar to the cypherpunks would be a good thing, however, 
simply because I like the idea of having something more low-key to compare 
c-punks with, sort of like the IRA to Sinn Fein.  I'm just offering some 
humble advice, knowing full well that I am for the most part an unknown 
lurker without much reputational weight to throw around.  It's also part 
of a leadership dynamic that is, I feel, underused.  (Furthermore, if it 
works, I could use it as a paper topic for my social psychology class ;). )

Sincerely, 
-=Kathleen M. Ellis=-

<ObDCCPPlug> If you can come, don't forget that the DC Cypherpunks are 
having a meet on Saturday at 3pm at Digital Express in Beltsville, 
MD..email me for directions or info on our mailing list. </OBDCCPPlug>

kelli@zeus.towson.edu       Geek Code v3.0      http://zeus.towson.edu/~kelli/
GAT dx s++:- a-- C++ uu+++ P+ L++ E- W++ N K W--- O- M- V-- PS+++ PE- y+>+(-)
PGP+>++ t+ 5 x+ R tv b+++ DI- D--- G e h* r+ z**
Diverse Sexual Orientation Coll.Towson State University DSOC@zeus.towson.edu

"All the world will be your enemy, Prince With The Thousand Enemies. . .
And whenever they catch you, they will kill you.
But first, they must catch you. . ."
                                           -Richard Adams