From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 93 15:09:54 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Crypto Activism and Respectability
Message-ID: <9304212209.AA03876@netcom.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Crypto Activism and Respectability, or, Should We Become "Suits"?


Several Cyperpunks, er, "Privacy Advocates," have called for the name
"Cypherpunks" to be changed to something more serious, more respectable,
less likely to scare the horses. Something like "Cryptography Privacy" or
"Cryptologic Research Association." Some even want a parallel to the NRA,
such as the "National Cryptography Association."

Further, there have been comments that referring to "crypto anarchy," as
I've been doing for several years (my "Crypto Anarchist Manifesto" was
first distributed in 1988) is, to put it bluntly, "not helpful to the
cause." Talk of libertarian ideas, "If crypto is outlawed, only outlaws
will have crypto," and other such "crypto radicalism" is seen as
unrespectable, as counterproductive. We're not speaking the language of the
"suits," it's said. Middle America will be turned off by the hippie
radicals in t-shirts, leather jackets, sandals, and beards. 

(Some readers of this list have volunteered that they'd make better
spokespersons for the Cause because they are clean-shaven, they look like
good corporate citizens, and they know how to make the right soothing
noises to interviewers. I say, "Great! We need more publicity." Just don't
tell the rest of us California types, where sandals, beards, and jeans
remain common, that we need to "go corporate." Picture a "smiley" here, if
that's your style.)

I want to respond by making several comments:

* Radicals like ourselves have always been under pressure to conform to
societal norms, whether to dress in the "gray flannel suit" in the 1950s or
to eschew long hair and beads in the 60s. 

* Guess what? The message is almost more important than the messenger.
People have a pretty clear idea of what people are saying, despite their
appearance. And, frankly, my guess is that even most of Middle America will
feel somewhat more comfortable listening to a John Gilmore, for example,
than a Bill Gates-type nerd clone. People know honesty and sincerity when
they see it, and they know lawyers when they see them. It's been 25 years
since the hippie heyday, and most Americans have adjusted to varying
outward appearances. (Actually, they've internalized and accepted long hair
and beards....shaved heads, nose piercings, and body adornments they
probably haven't yet accepted. But most of the "crypto anarchist
cypherpunks" are of the more conventional kind of "disreputable"
appearance, so the point is moot.)

* The more serious message of toning down our calls for complete and total
access to whatever crypto tools we can get is potentially more divisive to
this group. We don't all have the same politics...some of us are
anarcho-capitalists, some are socialists (I hear), some are nonpolitical
(as near as I can tell), some decline to state, and some may off in their
own uncharted territory. But what we all seem to believe in common is that
no government has the right to force us to make tape recordings of all of
our conversations (to be placed in escrow, in case the government someday
needs to listen to them!), to tap our phones, to insist we speak in
government-approved non-coded language, and to use their "Wiretap Chips."

I said "potentially" more divisive. In practice, nobody on this list is
really disagreeing in a major way with our general goals of privacy and
access to tools (to borrow the "Whole Earth" phrase). A few people
disagreed with the way remailers, like our home-grown remailers and like
Johan Helsingius' (he's also on this list, of course), were being handled.
But that's the kind of debate we want.

* To some, like David Sternlight, Dorothy Denning, and Andrew Molitor,
these are radical, unreasonable, and subversive views. "Remember, children,
the policeman is your *friend*." seems to sum up their view of crypto. It's
hard to imagine just what we have to "be reasonable" about with such
people. A basic ideological divide separates us.

* I fully agree with many of you that the name "Cypherpunks" has some,
shall we say, _unusual_ connotations. Some will assume we're skateboarding
geeks, others will assume we're "crypto primitives" who pierce our bodies
and spend all our time at raves. But the name has undeniable appeal to
many, and certainly grabs a lot of attention. It seems improbable that some
staid name like "Northern California Cryptography Hobbyists Association"
would've gotten much attention, let alone a write-up in "Wired" (and
upcoming pieces in "Whole Earth Review," "The Village Voice," etc.).

(Perhaps you out there who first heard about us via an article in "Mondo,"
or "Wired," or a reference someplace, like MindVox or sci.crypt, can tell
us what grabbed your attention, what you liked and disliked about the name,
etc. Just as feedback.)

In any case, it's much too late to change the name now. Publicity of
"Cypherpunks" has spread the name, lots of journalists are intrigued by it,
and it basically *does* capture the spirit of our group. After all, for
basic civil liberties and cyberspace issues, the ACLU, CPSR, and EFF
already exist and do a fair job at presenting lawyer-like faces to the
press. And for conventional "phreaking," the group "2600" is having their
own meetings. We don't have to be the group with the subdued and staid
image.

And note tha the "Hackers Conference" has not changed _their_  name,
either, despite the negative publicity given the name. (A meta-rule: There
is no such thing as negative publicity. All they have to do is spell your
name right. Ironically, in a recent "MacWorld" column, Steven Levy
misspelled our name as "Cipherpunks." He got it right in his "Wired" piece,
though.)

* As for respectablity, is our goal to be "co-opted" into the
Establishment? (Geez. these words I'm writing could've been written in
1968!) Is it to be a respectable voice for moderation and the gentle
process of negotiating? I think not.

(Note that the Wiretap Chip was *not* presented for discussion and for
industry comment. Neither the Bush nor Clinton camps presented this for
public debate--unless you consider Dorothy Denning's comments to be the
"trial balloon" I suggested it was last fall in sci.crypt...Denning has
made the curious claim that she knew "nothing" of the Clipper plan until
the night before it was publicly announced. This plan is a fait accompli,
production of the chips is underway, and AT&T has already announced their
Clipper-tapped phone. The best we can do is undermine the proposal, deploy
strong crypto as widely as possible before it's outlawed completely
(Clipper will fail if strong crypto alternatives are available...what do
you think Big Brother plans to do about this?), and continue to make as
much noise as we can about the evils of invading privacy in this way. I see
little indication that reasonable negotiation is being invited.)

* There are already several groups, as I've mentioned, made up of lawyers
and "respectable spokesmen" like Mitch Kapor and Mike Godwin (wherever he
is now). In a sense, Cypherpunks fill an important ecological niche by
being the outrageous side, the radical side...perhaps a bit like the role
the Black Panthers, Yippies, and Weather Underground played a generation
ago. (By the way, "The Crypto Underground" was one of my favorite name
proposals....aren't you glad now we settled on Jude Milhon's "Cypherpunks"
suggestion?)

* Cypherpunks write code, as Eric put it. They write code, they build
remailers, they test systems to see how they break, they share their
findings, they ignore restrictions on crypto, they look at the consequences
of strong crypto, and they write articles like this.

* Now I'm all for respectability in certain ways, ways that come naturally
to each of us. When I talk to journalists, I speak in complete sentences, I
explain things in the most straightforward way possible, etc. I don't roll
in on my skateboard and say "Dewd! Yo bro, let's skank this Clipper shit!"

But I don't plan to shave off my beard, cut my hair, start wearing suits,
or be "moderate and reasonable" in my arguments. Nor do I intend to water
down my messages about digital money, anonymous systems, and crypto
anarchy.

"Let a thousand flowers bloom."  --Mao (not one of my heroes)

"Live dangerously." --Nietzsche (one of my heroes)


-Tim May, Cypherpunk

--
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, smashing of governments.
Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: MailSafe and PGP available.
Waco Massacre + Big Brother Wiretap Chip = A Nazi Regime