From: rclark@nyx.cs.du.edu (Robert W. F. Clark)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 93 19:02:53 PDT
To: kinney@spot.Colorado.EDU (KINNEY WILLIAM H)
Subject: Re: alt.whistleblowers
In-Reply-To: <199304150058.AA21866@spot.Colorado.EDU>
Message-ID: <9304150204.AA03482@nyx.cs.du.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> Some comments on alt.whistleblowers from an (up to now) lurker. In brief,
> this strikes me as being a very foolish idea. 

Perhaps it is; this is why I'm sending it out for discussion instead
of just newgrouping it.

> -- Does anyone really think this is going to have much of an effect on
>    anything? My suspicion is that a forum providing unlimited ability
>    for people to anonymously post undocumented accusations against 
>    powerful people will be summarily ignored, not just by the targets
>    of the accusations, but by everybody else with an actual life. There
>    seems to be no discussion of the biggest weakness of this idea: the
>    expected signal to noise ratio. This accomplishes nothing if it is 
>    overrun by, say, Kennedy asassination loons. It doesn't seem wise to me
>    for the Cypherpunks' first major public act to be something this
>    pointless and ill-conceived.

Actually, it is more my act, which I decided upon based on memes
I received partially from this list; the cypherpunks, if they do
choose to support the idea, will do it individually; and, as yet,
I have not had the arrogance to make a public announcement to
the effect that the cypherpunks made this action.  My name only
is attached to this; no praise, no blame.

> Ok. Suppose I'm wrong about the above, and this thing works like people
> seem to think it will.

Well, it might not; there are a number of potential hurdles, like
the possibility that it will turn into a mindless narc fest; my
personal opinion as to this is that I would prefer to leave the
group unmoderated, but with an _option_ to moderate if the worst
occurs.  Of _course_ this will be abused, but I believe that it will
also be used.

This will provide an empirical basis for our principles.  Success
or failure will determine whether hypotheses need to be revised,
or if they do, in fact, have predictive capability.

> -- The tools available to accomplish this task (PGP, remailers, anon servers)
>    are certainly impressive, but I really don't think they're well developed
>    enough yet to give cause for much confidence in taking on the government
>    and the entire U.S. corporate sector in a frontal assault. 

Well, if people are careful, and don't log in to an anonymous server
_from_ an account with their name, but from an anonymous dataswitch,
all Bell or the Department of Housing and Urban Development would
know is that someone who works for them posted this anonymous message;
which they knew already.  Of course, anything beyond the first posting
would be tracable if someone really wanted to do it, but what would it
prove, unless they traced it to that person?  

Another possibility is to go primitive and use snailmail, digitize
images and data or type in by hand.  Without very specific reasons,
opening U S Mail is not condoned.

> -- Is this really in line with the purpose of the Cypherpunks? To quote from
>    the charter

>["Cypherpunks write code" paragraph from FAQ]

>    I like this paragraph, and what it says to me is that (a) people
>    are, in the end, responsible for their OWN security and need to be made
>    to realize this, and (b) PATIENCE is the most important prerequisite
>    for success. Both of these principles are being violated by the
>    hasty creation of alt.whistleblowers. This has nothing to do with
>    enabling people to independently achieve data security, and it shows
>    no patience whatsoever.

You may be right.  I may not be orthodox cypherpunk.  

However, with the proliferation of retroactive posting cancellation
of anonymous posts, I believe it is possible to be patient to so
great an extent that one calmly and rationally discusses a situation
until the moment when action would have been useful has passed; 
in other words, you've discussed battle strategy until the enemy's won.

> Wouldn't everybody be better served by quiet, patient development and
> distribution of tools, instead of a huge juvenile "FUCK YOU!" to people
> who could really care less? Let's not piss away a solid foundation with
> cheap theatrics.

Again, I believe that you _can_ be quiet and develop tools.  It
is good that this is being done by _somebody_.  

However, I take issue with your assertion that a formal Request
for Discussion, worded in a non-inflammatory manner, is a juvenile
"FUCK YOU!"  If you doubt this, check out the RFD when it appears
in news.announce.newgroups.  What little temperature was in it
was deleted; I spent about three hours implementing the suggestions
of others and cut the verbiage by a half.  

I do not see how this can damage what foundation we have;
essentially a few software packages and an ideology.

However, to protect from just this occurence, I did not present
my viewpoints as cypherpunk viewpoints in the announcement, merely
as my own.

The word 'cypherpunk' does not occur anywhere in the article.

If cypherpunks wish to discuss this group, why it would be a good
or bad idea, or if it would be better-named, it may be discussed.

If it is decided that the idea should be shelved, then so be it.

I, and we, shall bide our time, and create it as an alt.group
in the meantime.

Very likely, at least in the beginning, privacy will be provided
by the person who wishes to have it, and that person will take
responsibility for the consequence of his or her actions.

Check out the discussion.  Let the net decide.
----
Robert W. Clark
rclark@nyx.cs.du.edu   PGP signature available by mail or finger