From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 93 02:44:46 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: The Religion of the Cypherpunks
Message-ID: <9311131044.AA20370@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


- EH & TCM statements on pseudospoofing
- hypocrisies and the religion of pseudospoofing
- the second pseudospoofing survey
- a tale of two `cypherpunks' (Or: The Postmaster, The Magicians, and the Critic)


EH & TCM statements on pseudospoofing
--

From `someone':

>There is no conspiracy.  EH and TCM have publicly stated several times
>that they have never "pseudospoofed."  Why would they go to such lengths
>just to create an elaborate hoax and attempt to drive you crazy?  There's
>no conceivable reason.  It's easily confirmed that there are hundreds of
>real, unique individual people on the cypherpunks list.  You see their
>email addresses.  This is crazy.  I just don't see your point.  You are
>exhibiting MAJOR paranoia symptoms.  Why do this to yourself?

I missed the public statements by EH and TCM that `they have never
`pseudospoofed'', despite my various requests, both public and private,
over the past few weeks -- could someone email those to me? Mr. May
told me he `had experimented' with the technique (I only say this
because I think it is public knowledge at this point). I have seen some
circuitous statements (quoted in the RISKS article) that pseudonyms are
a fact of life in cyberspace, and `the situations you despise will
occur.' None of these are very authoritative, IMHO. All the statements
I have seen are far from conclusive, and they have consistently
stonewalled and evaded me in private mail. (That is the *only* reason I
have continued to escalate my rhetoric.) If they answered my simple
questions, and been straightforward about their practices, I would have
no objections, and I would have `gone away' a long time ago.


hypocrisies and the religion of pseudospoofing
--

One of the things I don't understand about this pseudospoofing religion
thing -- if it is the cypherpunk religion, as hundreds of email
messages have convinced me it is, why are so many cypherpunks so
resistant to revealing their personal involvement? Isn't religion
supposed to uplifting, something you can be proud of, something you can
announce to the world? Why is there so much secrecy? You don't think
there's anything wrong or criminal or shameful about what you're doing, do you?

I suppose all the secrecy would be useful in promoting a *conspiracy*,
but what's the use in that? Isn't the whole idea that you are trying to
promote all these neat techniques to the whole world, so that everyone
can use them? (Oh, that's that annoying egalitarian idea-- sorry, of
course you have flamed that searingly.)  I always thought that
cypherpunks were against things like secret conspiracies and
corruption. Or maybe they only are against it when a *government* is
engaged in it. Private practice, so to speak, is entirely wholesome,
commendable, useful, and desirable? 

I suppose that the more that people knew about widespead
pseudospoofing, the less susceptible to it they would become, so the
usefulness of the technique would be diminished. (the `robbing the
treasury' principle I wrote about earlier --eventually it becomes
bare!). Or, some people have these nagging taboos against it. For
example, a net legend John Palmer supposedly is famous for it. Also,
some people might just leave anywhere where the pseudospoofing was
really prevalent. That would be unpleasant for anyone who wanted to
practice it routinely on unsuspecting and unwilling participants.

I suppose this secret conspiracy approach does fit in with some of the
Extropian and cryptoanarchist ideas also, about elevating the idea of
private companies, tax evasion, and black marketeering to the point of
the complete dissolution of governments, etc. I asked a top Extropian
leader about their official opinion on pseudospoofing -- neutral, pro,
con, or undecided. He was quite upset by my question and refused to
answer it, and cc:ed his response to all the other prominent leaders in
the group. (I guess this could tie in with a letter by H.Finney to me
saying that one of the Extropian leaders could help verify the
independent existence of J.Dinkelacker.)

I appreciate all the cypherpunks outlining their philosophies in so
many forums. It helps me to understand what you all are about. For
example, I just started posting to a list on Internet Mercantile
Protocols, and was quite surprised to find a group of cypherpunks
already there, strongly promoting things like completely untraceable
cash and total anonymity (and criticizing all alternatives as
Orwellian). In fact, one of them had written one of the most
*beautiful* classic cypherpunk essays in favor of the Joy of
Pseudospoofing (`tapping into new areas of the human psyche' or a
`truer, more free debate', or something like that.)

If anyone else knows of other cypherpunks posting to various Internet
development project lists, esp. those related to digital cash or
identification protocols, I would be interested in hearing from you.
Have they generally been polite? Do they look at all sides of the
issues? What do they have to say about identity protocols?

Really, though, the bottom line is that anyone doesn't like to talk
about their religion of pseudospoofing is nothing but a hypocrite. If
pseudospoofing is OK, then why hide it? If you are hiding it, does that
mean it is not OK?


the second pseudospoofing survey
--

As an example of this idea of disclosure, I asked two prominent
cypherpunk `leaders' (who object to the term, and will remain nameless
to protect their `privacy') to answer the following questions, which
would obviously unequivocally resolve their own involvement in the
practice of `pseudospoofing':

> I will stop harassing you two personally over the issue of
> pseudospoofing if you post the following, and cc: me:
> 
> 1) how many identities each of you is currently maintaining
> 2) how many U.S. states they span
> 3) how many countries they span
> 4) how many independent phone numbers you have established
> 5) what mailing lists you are using them in, past & present
> 6) what newsgroups you are using them in, past & present
> 7) the people you have privately emailed under them
> 8) how many other people you know in Cypherpunks who are routinely pseudospoofing
> 9) their own responses to these questions
> 10) your software capabilities in promoting the pseudospoofing agenda
> 11) the number of hours per day you spend on pseudospoofing
> 12) your future intentions in promoting the capability
> 
> Note that I am not requesting that you actually disclose any of the
> identities (or even close geographical information). Since you find
> pseudospoofing entirely ethical, I see no reason you would object to
> answering any of the above.
> 
> Otherwise, `the beatings will continue until morale improves'
> 
> p.s. what do you think of the RISKS article? I think it turned out
> great. Hope to hear from you. <g> 
> 
> If you wish to make your own demands, I'm negotiable.
> 

I asked these questions because I was disapointed by the results of my
survey I posted to talk.politics.crypto. While I received many
responses, few were from the cypherpunks who had openly advocated
pseudospoofing on this list. And the `core cypherpunk leadership' was
completely unrepresented. I was laboring under the impression that
everyone that passionately pursued pseudospoofing was also passionately
interested in explaining their brilliant techniques! But it appears
they are very reluctant to talk about their obviously highly refined
culture of science, religion, and art of pseudospoofing. I greatly
despaired that the cypherpunks were so unrepresented officially,
especially given their strong advocation of pseudospoofing. Surely,
they would want to let the world know about their religion! If they
didn't, it might look like they were not holy saints but just lowly
conspirators! Also, this could be the comprehensive official cypherpunk
statement crafted by EH and TCM (revered cypherpunk leaders) on
pseudospoofing that has so far eluded me.


A Tale of Two `Cypherpunks' (Or: The Postmaster, The Magicians, and the Critic)
--

So I devised this new variation of my previous survey, designed to be
completely free of `invasions of privacy', and targeted at the core
cypherpunk leadership. Sort of like a direct mailing approach. Anyway,
in response to my questions, one of the two eminent cypherpunks was
very terse, as he has a habit of being, and called my questions
`inquisitional'. I guess he was referring to the Spanish Inquisition,
where all kinds of grisly torture devices were used to extract
`confessions' from supposed criminals (often completely innocent). I'm
not clear of the connection. Perhaps someone could elaborate on this metaphor.

The second cypherpunk was more grandiose and verbose in his rhetoric.
He acknowledged that `I have resisted until now responding to your
recent rants'. For those not currently familar with the unique language
of the Pseudospoofing Religion, he was saying here that he has not
answered any of my questions directly so far because, likely, the
answers would be embarrassing, incriminating, humiliating or all of the above.

He was so compassionate as to remark on my recent apparent strain over
the topic of pseudospoofing, suggesting that I seek counseling or take
a long vacation from the Net (thanks so much for your concern). Then he
talked about how my `threats' especially the `violent ones' could not
be `idly dismissed'. This cypherpunk has an extremely active
imagination (this is evidenced in his love for great works of science
fiction, especially those that refer to the blurring of identities).
I'm not sure where he got the idea about `violence'. The only violence
that has ever been involved is entirely metaphorical, happening on the
plane of reputations and credibility. (I assure you that lately I am
bloody myself!) Maybe he took the obviously satirical line about
`continued beatings' literally. Ah, he is quite suggestible. I guess
the only thing I can remember on this subject was Dinkelacker's letter
to me, `you better start looking over your shoulder'. That was
*definitely* unpleasant! Oh, and there was what's-his-name's comment,
`I'm going to come over and kill your family with a rusty razor blade'.

This cypherpunk goes on to say that I have turned myself into the
`laughingstock of the Net [...]' from `your latest paranoid descent
into fantasy in RISKS, and your email harassment of many of us.' As for
`paranoid descent into fantasy', I think everyone understood this was a
hypothetical scenario. Maybe Mr. Cypherpunk has information that
suggests otherwise. If so, I would love to see it, as I'm sure everyone
else here would too. Actually, it's all I've been aiming for over about
a dozen posts and articles now.

I'm not sure what he is referring to as `harassment'. I think some of
the questions I have raised in my writings on pseudospoofing, and
perhaps the questions above, he considers `harassing'. I'm quite at a
loss as to why. The questions I included above are very innocuous. I
would think that someone proud of themselves and their beliefs would
humor me immediately in answering them, recognizing that I will not go
away until they do so (and answering a simple question, of course, is
just common courtesy). Certainly, I would fill out the questions
myself, and am sure many other honest cypherpunks would see no invasion
of privacy in doing so either (they are vague enough to protect
privacy, IMHO, as designed to do, but of course I'm biased!).

This cypherpunk closes by stating that `I have a strong feeling that
you're going to have a very hard time getting a job in the computer
industry after this spectacular series of rants.' Thanks, again, for
your concern! Actually, I have made some very valuable contacts from
professionals from the RISKS article, who are as concerned about these
issues as I am. My mailbox has been quite deep with requests for the
`Joy of Pseudospoofing' essay, first posted here! (Again, if anyone has
not seen it, please email me.) I'm quite glad I managed to get in this
prestigious journal, because now others can be aware of the potential
abuses of widespread, systematic, routine pseudospoofing. The
cypherpunks have been largely uninterested or critical in my writings
on the subject, so it's very refreshing to find someone else in
Cyberspace who can discuss something as important as pseudospoofing
dispassionately, knowledgeably, and honestly.

The `terse' cypherpunk had earlier notified my postmaster about my
public posting here revealing Mr. Metzger's (prominent cypherpunk and
close friend of the core leadership) mailbombing me and further
mailbomb threats. He didn't find it necessary to notify my postmaster
this time about my `inquisitional' questions. I guess he understood
when my postmaster and I both sent him mail explaining why this was an
inappropriate tactic.

The second cypherpunk had not previously mailed my postmaster, but

>I am taking the step I have never before considered doing, in more
>than five years of active participation in the Net, of copying your
>postmaster on this note. Maybe he can talk some sense to you.

I guess the `terse' cypherpunk had not informed him that my postmaster
was uninterested in his personal problems. (This is surprising, given
their obviously strong affinity for each other.) But my postmaster did
send him a note later explaining why he `didn't have time for this
nonsense'. There do not appear to be any new developments along this
line. I am crossing my fingers that my postmaster will not be further
harassed by other cypherpunks. Anyway, I think he has already decided I
have just offended a particularly vocal group of raving religious
fanatics. (Some other people have gotten this impression from the RISKS
article. Maybe the clarifications on pseudospoofing by the top
leadership will help resolve all this.)

I generally regard all these lamentations and supplications to my
postmaster as extremely desperate attempts to censor me where all other
efforts at silencing me have failed. Also, I think they are definitely
invasions of my privacy. How many other people out there would like to
have your postmaster bothered just because you offended some
particularly sensitive people? Again, if you object to what I write,
just stick me in your kill file. You will certainly save us both a lot
of trouble! Mr. Hughes, our eminent and esteemed moderator, has
recommended this numerous times in other contexts. I'm absolutely
aghast and amazed at how many cypherpunks think that the most effective
way of getting me to be quiet is to send me mail. It is quite a curious
and perplexing approach. (Even more baffling was Mr. Metzger's
procedure of sending me mail, saying essentially `do not reply to this
or I will mailbomb you with 400 messages.' I respond to virtually all
personal mail, but as I noted I have made a worthy exception for His
Royal Eminence, as learned the hard way.)

(I would like to thank those who have the power to censor me and have
refrained. It shows you have a strong and admirable sense of morality.
At one point someone told me `If I did not allow you to post, that
would not be censorship'. I never understood the reasoning. But so far,
it appears that the cypherpunks are generally opposed to direct
censorship, although the indirect route is not taboo.)

The bottom line is that my efforts at enlightenment, now spanning many
weeks, have so far have gone `unrequited'. The top cypherpunks do not
wish to reveal the extent their amazing feats of pseudospoofing. We can
only continue to speculate on their sheer prowess and fantastic span!
(I'm currently investigating the opportunity to do so in reputable
publications -- email me and I will toss your offer into the current
batch under consideration).

I guess the Tantalizing Two feel that `a magician never reveals his
secrets'. And what amazing feats of deception we have witnessed! Dozens
of Rabbits emanating from a Single Hat, all while the magician says,
`nothing up my sleeves!' Are there any stagehands or informed audience
members that would like to comment on their masters' remarkable skill?
So far, it is a remarkably unified front. But I am continuing to `cram'
wedges into the cracks...

Ah, the pity of it all. The tension, anxiety, and anticipation is
driving me crazy! I wish to consummate this affair, so to speak! The
spotlight continues to burn down hotly! When will the show be over?
When can I go home? Tell my friends what happened in the end and write
my review? When will the fat lady sing?

p.s. anyone in Colorado, PRZ is giving a talk in Boulder on Sunday I
think. if you email me I might be able to scrounge up the details
somewhere in my piles of slobbering hate mail. <g>