Will off-topic libertarian bullshit be allowed on the moderated mailing list?

Hello,

For a long time, cypherpunks mailing list has been plagued by
two types of irrelevant traffic: 

	1) Flames by Vulis against cypherpunks and by cypherpunks against
	   Vulis.
	2) Off-topic rants about libertarian ideology, guns, poverty,
	   Ebonics, etc etc.

Both types of messages were equally damaging to the content that I
consider worth reading: discussions about applications of cryptography,
protocols and crypto-related code. As a result, most of the people who
used to talk about cryptosystems do not do so anymore because they moved
to other, less noisy, forums.

It was very sad to see that nobody except Eric Murray wanted to
seriously try to discuss IPG algorithm, which was in my opinion an
excellent case study of a home-grown cryptosystem. Eric wrote lots of
excellent C code to check the "random" number generator, but no one else
was interested.

Cypherpunks's uniqueness and appeal is not in the breadth of issues
discussed: there are forums dedicated to libertarian issues, guns,
languages, terrorism, and so on. The mission of this forum, as I
understand it, was to provide amateurs with interest in applying
cryptography, and professional cryptographers alike, a good place to
discuss crypto-related issues productively.

It is understandable that many of those people who subscribe to
cypherpunks' credo of digital freedom happen to be devoted libertarians
and have strong views on other political subjects. It does not justify
bringing every important issue to this mailing list, however.

If restrictions on content are to be imposed, it is not only fair
but also rational to exclude off-topic political rants as well as 
flames. Both of these categories add zero value to accomplishing
Cypherpunks' mission.

	- Igor.

Appendix: what we all received when we subscribed:

Cypherpunks assume privacy is a good thing and wish there were more
of it.  Cypherpunks acknowledge that those who want privacy must
create it for themselves and not expect governments, corporations, or
other large, faceless organizations to grant them privacy out of
beneficence.  Cypherpunks know that people have been creating their
own privacy for centuries with whispers, envelopes, closed doors, and
couriers.  Cypherpunks do not seek to prevent other people from
speaking about their experiences or their opinions.

The most important means to the defense of privacy is encryption. To
encrypt is to indicate the desire for privacy.  But to encrypt with
weak cryptography is to indicate not too much desire for privacy.
Cypherpunks hope that all people desiring privacy will learn how best
to defend it.

Cypherpunks are therefore devoted to cryptography.  Cypherpunks wish
to learn about it, to teach it, to implement it, and to make more of
it.  Cypherpunks know that cryptographic protocols make social
structures.  Cypherpunks know how to attack a system and how to
defend it.  Cypherpunks know just how hard it is to make good
cryptosystems.

Cypherpunks love to practice.  They love to play with public key
cryptography.  They love to play with anonymous and pseudonymous mail
forwarding and delivery.  They love to play with DC-nets.  They love
to play with secure communications of all kinds.

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.

Cypherpunks don't care if you don't like the software they write. 
Cypherpunks know that software can't be destroyed.  Cypherpunks know
that a widely dispersed system can't be shut down.

Cypherpunks will make the networks safe for privacy.

[Last updated Mon Feb 21 13:18:25 1994]

Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> For a long time, cypherpunks mailing list has been plagued by
> two types of irrelevant traffic:
>         2) Off-topic rants about libertarian ideology, guns, poverty,
>            Ebonics, etc etc.
 
  I don't consider discussion of ideologies and social issues to be
irrelevant to 'any' forum.
  Numbers have no soul. The development of the Atomic Bomb took place
within a closed system where the goal was central and the social
implications were, at best, peripheral. The continued development
of Atomic Physics remained in the hands of the 'powers that be',
with its progress hidden from the public, and with no social
discourse on the wide range of issues that would affect the public.
  We ended up with a bunch of guys sitting in cement rooms, holding
keys that would enable them to destroy the world.
  The 'Star Wars' program would have ended up the same way, except
the fools in power were confident enough in their ability to hornswaggle
the public and ramrod into place whatever policies they wanted, that
they had to 'brag' about it, and open it up for discussion.
  When Joe Average shouted, "Hey, Shit-For-Brains, I'm sitting here
trying to feed my kids, and you're pissing all my money away.", the
developers and backers of 'Star Wars' seemed to think that his
complaints were 'off-topic', or 'irrelevant'.

> Both types of messages were equally damaging to the content that I
> consider worth reading: discussions about applications of cryptography,
> protocols and crypto-related code. As a result, most of the people who
> used to talk about cryptosystems do not do so anymore because they moved
> to other, less noisy, forums.

  I've seen several postings from 'newbies', asking perfectly reasonable
questions in regard to cryptography,  and saw them get nothing but 
shit and abuse for answers. I didn't see them ask again.
  As a matter of fact, the only serious, technical, crypto-related 
questions I have asked of anyone on this forum, I have asked by private 
email, after ascertaining that the person seemed both knowledgeable
and sincere about cryptography.
  Perhaps if the 'experts', busy discussing highly-technical areas,
were to take the time to educate those seeking to gain a wider knowledge
of cryptography, then CypherPunks would have a broader base of 
active crypto-related postings.  The more plants that you have in your
garden, the less room there is for weeds.

> It was very sad to see that nobody except Eric Murray wanted to
> seriously try to discuss IPG algorithm, which was in my opinion an
> excellent case study of a home-grown cryptosystem. Eric wrote lots of
> excellent C code to check the "random" number generator, but no one else
> was interested.

  Somebody was interested enough to post a question regarding it, but
I believe he only got one reply, telling him what an idiot he was.
  There were also several people interested enough in some 'code'
that they received as a result of joining this forum, that they
'ran' it, and had their systems damaged, as a result.
  They took a 'roasting' on the forum, which was not really totally
inappropriate, since it came from 'fuck@yourself.up', but I expected
that there would be no shortage of people to help them deal with
this problem in this forum.  Apparently, I was wrong.
  I did my best to help one of them, by private email, and what 
surprised me was that he got no other offers of assistance with
his problem, but rather, continued email informing what a 'dweeb'
he was.
 
> If restrictions on content are to be imposed, it is not only fair
> but also rational to exclude off-topic political rants as well as
> flames. Both of these categories add zero value to accomplishing
> Cypherpunks' mission.

  I think that 'political rants' need to cover a wide range of 
territory in order to deal with an important issue that needs to
be kept in mind in regard to the very purpose of cryptography:
  There is a 'shitload of ratfuckers' out there.
  I re-read Phil Zimmerman's comments in the PGP documentation
every now and again, and although he may say it more concisely
than some of those on the forum, he is saying exactly the same
thing.

  I read some of the well-informed postings, in regard to such things
as export laws and potential end-runs around various regulations,
and they may be fine, but, to me, they represent an incomplete
world-view which needs the added input of those who remind us that,
in the end, there's a big rat-dick waiting for anyone who bends 
over too far in order to read the fine-print.

  I enjoy your postings, I look forward to them in the future.

Toto

Igor Chudov @ home wrote:

> Appendix: what we all received when we subscribed:
> 
> Cypherpunks assume privacy is a good thing and wish there were more
> of it.  Cypherpunks acknowledge that those who want privacy must
> create it for themselves and not expect governments, corporations, or
> other large, faceless organizations to grant them privacy out of
> beneficence.

  Does 'moderation' relate to 'privacy'?
  Could this be amended to say:
 Cypherpunks assume moderation is a good thing and wish there were more
 of it.  Cypherpunks acknowledge that those who want moderation must
 create it for themselves and not expect governments, corporations, or
 other large, faceless organizations to grant them moderation out of
 beneficence.

>  Cypherpunks do not seek to prevent other people from
> speaking about their experiences or their opinions.

  Is this the 'old' policy?

> Cypherpunks love to practice.  They love to play with public key
> cryptography.  They love to play with anonymous and pseudonymous mail
> forwarding and delivery.  They love to play with DC-nets.  They love
> to play with secure communications of all kinds.

  So, if everyone is 'surprised' that somebody has been 'playing'
with the CypherPunks email, then they shouldn't be.

> Cypherpunks know that a widely dispersed system can't be shut down.

  But, Lord knows, they'll try.

Toto

On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> For a long time, cypherpunks mailing list has been plagued by
> two types of irrelevant traffic: 
> 
> 	1) Flames by Vulis against cypherpunks and by cypherpunks against
> 	   Vulis.
> 	2) Off-topic rants about libertarian ideology, guns, poverty,
> 	   Ebonics, etc etc.
> 
> Both types of messages were equally damaging to the content that I
> consider worth reading: discussions about applications of cryptography,
> protocols and crypto-related code. As a result, most of the people who
> used to talk about cryptosystems do not do so anymore because they moved
> to other, less noisy, forums.

[...]

> Cypherpunks's uniqueness and appeal is not in the breadth of issues
> discussed: there are forums dedicated to libertarian issues, guns,
> languages, terrorism, and so on. The mission of this forum, as I
> understand it, was to provide amateurs with interest in applying
> cryptography, and professional cryptographers alike, a good place to
> discuss crypto-related issues productively.
> 
> It is understandable that many of those people who subscribe to
> cypherpunks' credo of digital freedom happen to be devoted libertarians
> and have strong views on other political subjects. It does not justify
> bringing every important issue to this mailing list, however.
> 
> If restrictions on content are to be imposed, it is not only fair
> but also rational to exclude off-topic political rants as well as 
> flames. Both of these categories add zero value to accomplishing
> Cypherpunks' mission.

Disagree strongly.

Were you to call for a total restriction on political topics, frankly,
your argument would be more convincing.  You do not. This suggests,
correct or not, that your dispute is with libertarian views specifically.
It also demonstrates the danger of allowing that kind of selective
moderation, specificially, that it gives rise to interest group politics
and issue based censorship.  Moderation here is being proposed in (I
believe) reaction to the "Tim May sucks (insert reproductive organ of
choice here)" posts and flames having not even a tangential attachment to
cryptography.  If you get into singling out other topics as somehow
universally inappropriate I think you get into very deep water.

Is finance unimportant to cypherpunks?  I think this is a tougher argument
to make, but only because financial services and banks are not seen as the
kind of political entitites that free market systems generally are.

Cypherpunks is an important and distinct list because of the intense cross
pollenization between e.g., cryptographers and finance types,
cryptographers and bankers, cryptographers and lawyers, cryptographers and
polititians.

In the same way that crypto types despertly want the rest of the world to
become crypto savvy, it is important for crypto types to become
political, economicly savvy, and generally understand the larger context
of crypto applications.

There also exists a forum for pure cryptography discussion already.  (2
actually, the cryptography and the coderpunks lists).

> 	- Igor.
> 
> Appendix: what we all received when we subscribed:

[All but the last line deleted]

> Cypherpunks will make the networks safe for privacy.

And how will this happen without having the bankers, lawyers, polititians,
brokers, and economists in the boat?

--
Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures
Finger for Public Key   Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern
Vote Monarchist         Switzerland

Black Unicorn wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > For a long time, cypherpunks mailing list has been plagued by
> > two types of irrelevant traffic: 
> > 
> > 	1) Flames by Vulis against cypherpunks and by cypherpunks against
> > 	   Vulis.
> > 	2) Off-topic rants about libertarian ideology, guns, poverty,
> > 	   Ebonics, etc etc.
> > 
> > Both types of messages were equally damaging to the content that I
> > consider worth reading: discussions about applications of cryptography,
> > protocols and crypto-related code. As a result, most of the people who
> > used to talk about cryptosystems do not do so anymore because they moved
> > to other, less noisy, forums.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > Cypherpunks's uniqueness and appeal is not in the breadth of issues
> > discussed: there are forums dedicated to libertarian issues, guns,
> > languages, terrorism, and so on. The mission of this forum, as I
> > understand it, was to provide amateurs with interest in applying
> > cryptography, and professional cryptographers alike, a good place to
> > discuss crypto-related issues productively.
> > 
> > It is understandable that many of those people who subscribe to
> > cypherpunks' credo of digital freedom happen to be devoted libertarians
> > and have strong views on other political subjects. It does not justify
> > bringing every important issue to this mailing list, however.
> > 
> > If restrictions on content are to be imposed, it is not only fair
> > but also rational to exclude off-topic political rants as well as 
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > flames. Both of these categories add zero value to accomplishing
> > Cypherpunks' mission.
> 
> Disagree strongly.
> 
> Were you to call for a total restriction on political topics, frankly,
> your argument would be more convincing.  You do not. This suggests,
> correct or not, that your dispute is with libertarian views specifically.

Thanks for your comments. I apologize for not being clear. I do call for
a total restriction on political discussions not related to privacy and
cryptography. It so happens that the vast majority of off-topic
political ranters on this list are of libertarian persuasion, that's why
I used word "libertarian" to identify what I was talking about. Of
course, I consider any discussion of politics not related to the
cypherpunks charter to be inappropriate for the list.

For example, if in the future a socialist joins this list and starts
advocating gun control, he should be censored just as well.

I do not advocate censoring any particular political view more
than any other.

Another question is, how do we tell an on-topic political discussion
from an off-topic discussion? My suggestion for such litmus test 
would be to ask: do different political alternatives being discussed
have immediate ramifications for digital privacy and use of encryption?

For instance, discussion of ITAR regulations obviously passes the litmus
test.  Discussion of machine gun laws, to the contrary, has nothing to
do directly with any encryption issues or privacy issues, and should
therefore be banned.

Some may argue that they can build a logic chain that would imply
that more machine guns means more encryption or something like that,
and use this as an argument in favor of allowing machine gun 
discussions. This is not a correct approach because the logical chain
would not be "direct" in the sense above.

> It also demonstrates the danger of allowing that kind of selective
> moderation, specificially, that it gives rise to interest group politics
> and issue based censorship.  Moderation here is being proposed in (I

This is absolutely correct. I do not believe that this problem has
a universal and perfect solution. One of the possible remedies would be
to write a charter that restricts moderators' ability to censor messages,
and have a diverse moderator board.

> believe) reaction to the "Tim May sucks (insert reproductive organ of
> choice here)" posts and flames having not even a tangential attachment to
> cryptography.  If you get into singling out other topics as somehow
> universally inappropriate I think you get into very deep water.

We may be in very deep water already. Lately we had a discussion
about a token-based protocol for identifying posters. Someone raised
an issue of preserving anonymity of remailer users, and brought up
a point that in certain cases the list maintainer should be "trusted".

Vulis followed up with a message insulting Gilmore, and said that 
Gilmore should not be trusted in that cryptographic protocol.

Is that about cryptography? And if we answer no, why is our answer
different from the answer for a discussion about machine guns? If we
answer yes, we'd have no way to legitimately prevent other annoying
insults.

> Is finance unimportant to cypherpunks?  I think this is a tougher argument
> to make, but only because financial services and banks are not seen as the
> kind of political entitites that free market systems generally are.

Again, some aspects of finance -- for example, ensuring integrity and
secrecy of electronic transactions -- are. Some, like whether blacks
should pay higher rates in consumer loans, or why investment bankers
make more than computer programmers -- are not. The litmus test should
be the same.

> Cypherpunks is an important and distinct list because of the intense cross
> pollenization between e.g., cryptographers and finance types,
> cryptographers and bankers, cryptographers and lawyers, cryptographers and
> polititians.
> 
> In the same way that crypto types despertly want the rest of the world to
> become crypto savvy, it is important for crypto types to become
> political, economicly savvy, and generally understand the larger context
> of crypto applications.

This is an excellent argument. I am not sure if my answer to it is any 
good, but do we want to make this a general education forum that is
meant to be a free replacement for college and books? Probably not.

"Political savviness for cypherpunks" probably does not mean that
cypherpunks should learn here how to run campaigns. Financial savviness
probably does not imply that cypherpunks should expect to learn here the
methods of derivatives pricing, negotiating M&A deals, and security 
analysis. There are better places to do that.

You are mentioning learning the "context of crypto applications", and that
is very close to the answer that I had in mind. Discussions of all 
disciplines -- law, finance, politics -- are very important and relevant 
here as long as they are giving us the "context of crypto applications",
and irrelevant beyond that.

> > Cypherpunks will make the networks safe for privacy.
> 
> And how will this happen without having the bankers, lawyers, polititians,
> brokers, and economists in the boat?

Having all these interesting people here does not contradict my
proposals in any way.

	- Igor.