From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 93 01:27:29 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Eric Hughes & the Cypherpunks Movement
Message-ID: <9311300924.AA15020@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


There was an interesting article in RISKS 15.28x on pseudoanonymity by
E.Hughes. Comments on pseudospoofing and pseudoanonymity by leading
Cypherpunks are *extremely* rare, and we have to prize every one! I
have asked many times and in many variations for more of these precious
gold nuggets, but results have been unrewarding over the past few
weeks. There has been a lot of commotion on the list lately on the
subject of pseudospoofing, and maybe if the Eminent Leaders came out
with a public statement on their personal knowledge, opinion, and
involvement in pseudospoofing many people would be less upset, and the
noise would die down! Just a hypothetical speculation, of course! They
must have excellent reasons for withholding one for this long, even in
the face of tremendous public and private pressure! (If anyone knows
what those reasons are, could you tell me?)

Anyway, on to this letter. The most interesting aspect of it is its
brevity. Many interesting implications were raised in RISKS 15.25 and
15.27 about the cryptoanarchist movement in black marketeering, tax
evasion, and sabotage of governments, and whether Cypherpunks ==
Cryptoanarchists. There was also insinuations of a secret mailing list,
manipulation of others, widespread deception of the media and a massive
hoax and conspiracy, a rampant pseudospoofing effort by the leadership
behind the scenes, even involving customized software, a Cult Religion
of Pseudoanonymity, etc. (You all know the black, sordid story!)
Unfortunately, much to my disappointment, the Eminent Leader did not
comment on any of these issues. But nevertheless I would like to
analyze what little was available.

The major point to make about this person is that everything he writes
is extremely carefully crafted to have a precise, intended effect. I
imagine that he spent a very large amount of time on this short
posting, making sure that it did not contain any incriminating
statements. It is a masterpiece of a deceptive and evasive message that
supposedly appears to `set the record straight' while actually being
completely, utterly empty of any true reassurances or denials.

>L. Detweiler's recent article on the RISKS of confusing an online
>identity with a potentially knowable physical one are quite
>interesting, if hypothetical.

Interesting the phrasing of `if hypothetical'. There is no indication
of any personal knowledge of the veracity of any of the hypothetical
situations. But! At the same time there is cleverly no statement in the
form, `I am not aware of any' or `I can assure you that they do not
exist' despite that this person would be in a position to issue a
statement of this sort, and that exactly such a statement is what is called for.

>I would be interested in hearing of situations where this practice
>has actually occurred.  If any RISKS members know of any such
>incidents from first-hand experience, please share them with the
>readership.

This is another extremely clever method of evading any personal
association, accountability, or responsibility for the issues raised.
This eminent leader is personally aware of a massive pseudospoofing
framework, namely his own, yet makes it appear he has no knowledge of
any by requesting information from others. Quite ingenious! This was
very similar to N.Szabo asking others for `pseudospoofing tools' and
`posting sites'. The entire problem with pseudospoofing, of course, is
that in the well-conceived cases only the practitioner has the kind of
`first hand experience' the eminent leader requests.

>Unfortunately, I think he really believes that the cypherpunks mailing
>list has been dominated by a small cabal who have been using multiple
>identities who talk with each other on the list in order to enforce
>concensus and to suppress disagreeing positions, namely his.

This is a clever method of (1) attempting to discredit L.Detweiler as
someone who believes that all people who disagree with him are
co-conspirators, and (2) not specifically mentioning those positions,
and (3) reformulating the many issues of RISKS 15.25 which are
extremely wide-encompassing, into a simple question of `a small cabal
on the list' who `disagrees with L.Detweiler'. These are all quite
ingenious ways of `begging the question' so to speak.

>It just ain't so.  

Despite the exchange of probably over a hundred messages in my
cypherpunk lifetime with this eminent leader, and reading dozens of his
public postings, I've never seen this eminent leader use a
colloquialism like `ain't' and its appearance, especially in this
context, is quite curious! Notice how he doesn't actually state *what*
isn't so, like `there is no cabal' or `I have no personal knowledge of
anyone posting under fake identities.' Overall this is another
meaningless statement that does not actually imply anything whatsoever.

>Therefore, to set the record straight I feel I ought to make the
>following public statement:

Note that this statement below does not `set the record straight' on
many of the issues raised, in particular the eminent leader's personal
knowledge of pseudospoofing.

>I, Eric Hughes, have never posted or communicated in any name other
>than my own.  

Frankly, I think this is a baldfaced lie. The eminent leader would be
implying, if it were to be taken literally and exactly, that he has
never used the anon.penet.fi server or any account other than one with
his name. What precisely does he *mean* by this statement? How are we
to be sure? We need a direct answer to the question, ``What accounts
have you posted from, and how were they identified?'' I have many
examples of a Medusa claiming `I, Medusa, have never posted or mailed
under any other name than Medusa.' This is because under the fanatic
religion of pseudospoofing, the cultists actually maintain that the
different `personalities' under the assorted `nyms' of a person
actually constitute *different* *people*! This, of course, is a
blasphemous abomination of the English language, warped to their own
ends of deceit, very much like the use of the term `true anonymity' by
N.Szabo or `pseudonym' by J.Gilmore.

>I can personally testify that I am not the same as any
>of the other people listed at the end of L. Detweiler's post, and I
>can testify from personal experience that Arthur Chandler, Hal Finney,
>Tim C. May, and Nick Szabo are all different people.

This is an interesting statement. Again, I think it is a baldfaced lie.
Notice that the eminent leader writes previously that `I have never
communicated under any name other than Eric Hughes.' All of these
statements would be superflous under that statement, if it were true.
But he finds it necessary to be more specific, for some curious reason.
The question in cyberspace is not about `people', but computer
accounts, as in, `Have you ever posted a message from any of these
accounts'? For example, if E.Hughes sent me mail that ``I have never
been the originator of a message from the G.Broiles site
goldenbear.com'' I would take that as authoritative. But he has never
answered any of my questions in any specific form. Even questions like
`How many pseudoanonymous identities are you using' he (and T.C.May)
refuses to answer.

>I also decline to answer, point by point, the numerous defamatory
>innuendos made by L. Detweiler against the members of the cypherpunks
>mailing list. 

Hee, hee, `defamatory innuendos' is a clever term. He does not actually
point to any specific `defamatory innuendo' as defamatory! They are
only defamatory if you can state they are false! Also, many of the
comments are not directed at `members of the cypherpunks list' but at
the *leadership*. But we have another ingenious diversion. The eminent
leader implies that a `point by point' statement would be tedious and
unjustified. I assure you, I would prize it beyond anything in my
~3,500 message collection of cypherpunk archives.

> Might I also observe that none of the statements are
>specific enough to actually count as accusation, but merely as general
>slander?

Another rather silly statement. Eminent leader E. Hughes, after many
weeks of my trouble, has never answered *either* my `defamatory
innuendoes' or my `specific accusations'. Imagine the sheer artillery
that would be for your hordes of cultists who continue to assault me,
Mr. Hughes! ``Mr. Hughes answered all your charges. Go to hell.''

* * *

Why do I persist at this? Because the Cypherpunks wish to pretend that
they are a respectable organization on the level of EFF or CPSR, with
leaders on par with say, Barlow, Sobel, or Kapor or Godwin. The simple
fact is that they are an obnoxious, arrogant, pathetic, repulsive bunch
of cyber-guerrilas, pseudospoofers, and quasi-criminals who have no
unity other than a Internet mailing list, which itself is used as a
testbed for pseudospoofing perversions on unsuspecting and unwilling
participants and cryptoanarchist disinformation and brainwashing. Oh,
how I have given you the benefit of the doubt, and gone to great
lengths to respect you! But your leaders are either undoubtedly corrupt
or accomplices, with more interest in secret conspiracies,
pseudoanonymity perversions, trust embezzlement, manipulation, and
predation, privacy invasion, pornography, ego assuagement, elitist
clique parties, and aquiring and dazzling their personality worshippers
than anything substantial, such as Internet project development, that
involves things upon which you urinate, like cooperation and openness.

You cling to your elaborate fantasies with gripping white knuckles.
Cypherpunks are blind to the ashes of their arson. `The Tyrant is not
that bad!' `Hell is not such a bad place!' `Look how much we have
accomplished'! You have nothing but gimmicks, trinkets and playthings,
not a `foundation' but deadly quicksand traps. The only observation is
that everything substantial accomplished by others you have done a
great deal to simultaneously take credit for and maliciously sabotage,
and everything you have accomplished is not substantial, and never will
be, as long as you wallow in your gutter. But you are not content to
wallow alone! You must drag the Current Internet and Future Cyberspace
into your filth. 

I think that real leaders such as Zimmermann, Chaum, Card, and Sterling
should have the sense to not only distance themselves but to condemn
your parties of freakshow perversions. The cypherpunks list is a magnet
for criminal apologists, moral relativists, libertarian extremists,
demogogues, poseurs, and hypocrites. Frankly, I'm quite upset that
respectable journals, like Wired, NYT, and RISKS have been subtly
twisted and corrupted with the depraved Cypherpunk fantasies and lies.
These knotty deceptions take an extraordinary amount of energy to
untangle, and there is enough here to keep historians busy for decades.

I'm grotesquely ashamed to have ever been associated with this sham,
this mockery, this farce, that masquerades as a `group' or a
`movement'. I have even lended credibility to tentacles by quoting them
in my FAQs and in RISKS, oh how that makes me want to vomit. `Anonymity
on the Internet' -- more like Disinformation, Brainwashing, and Lies by
Tentacles. The cypherpunks list does not deserve to be advertised
*anywhere* except as a dark pit to be avoided at all costs, the
cypherpunks Movement is no more meaningful than graffiti spraypainted
on a wall. It was only an infinitesimal whit better when it was just
spread by word of mouth among the conspiring CA slime. Please, go back
to your dark holes where you came from, and take your odious `movement'
with you. Oh, what insidious despicable poison.