From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 94 12:26:43 PST
To: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
Subject: Re: The Market for Crypto--A Curmudgeon's View
In-Reply-To: <199411291549.HAA03235@largo.remailer.net>
Message-ID: <199411292023.MAA00141@netcom19.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Eric Hughes wrote:

> Let me review the exact proposal.  First, a recognizer is set up at
> toad.com to distinguish between digitally signed and unsigned
> messages.  Second, some action on the message would be taken, which
> would gradually increase in effect over time.  The first action would
> be to add a header to the end of the mail identifying it as unsigned.
> A later action would be to delay the mail at the server for some
> amount of time.  A final action would be to delete or bounce messages
> that weren't signed.

As "all crypto is economics," the question is "why?" Why delay/bounce
messages that don't fit someone's idea of proper usage?

Not to trivialize this proposal by frivolously insulting it, but
consider a mailing list that decided to delay/bounce any messages that
were not written in TeX, or in Acrobat, or whatever. How would people
react who lacked these capabilities, or preferred to use alternatives
(like simple unadorned text), or who merely object to an enforced
standard?

If there's a good reason, fine. Or if the "owner" chooses to set
arbitrary policies, fine. "My house, my rules" and all that.

I don't want to open the pointless debate about who "owns" the list.
I'm relatively happy with the way things are: John Gilmore owns the
toad machine and lets us use the CPU, etc., Hugh Daniel performs
various maintenance actions on toad, and Eric Hughes is the de facto
chief operator of the list.

But that Eric--or John or Hugh or anyone else--has some notions of
what people _ought_ to be using does not seem to be enough to
effectively bar those who helped form the Cypherpunks group (many of
us) just because they choose to communicate in one particular way.

If some flavor of PGP is mandated, I expect I'll unsubscribe (as I
can't stand reading but not posting...lurkers obvious feel otherwise).

Absent a compelling reason, a market reason, why bother with someone's
notion of ideological reasons? If people feel my unsigned messages are
ideologically incorrect, they can not read my stuff. 

> I note that Tim is not objecting to the nature of these effects, but
> rather their existence, especially since he is not addressing the
> timing of any ramped up vigor at the server.  Just to set the record
> straight, refusing messages would be at the very least over year away,
> and certainly wouldn't be taken until crypto mail readers were widely
> available.  For purposes of discussion then, I leave out message
> deletion and only address the server actions of notification and
> delay.

I didn't address the timing because it's not the main issue. I agree
that a year-long delay would lessen the effects, but it's still unwise
to let ideology interfere with communication. (For example, if I ran
the list, instead of Eric, perhaps I'd insist that all posts be paid
for in digital cash...or bought, or whatever. Lots of folks would be
justifiably concerned that my ideology was getting in the way of
letting folks communicate as they see fit.)

(Like I've said, anyone who doesn't want to read unsigned posts is
perfectly free to filter out unsigned messages.)

> One underlying premise of Tim's argument is that the presence of these
> actions at the server makes his life harder.
> 
> In what way?  The server will not require a digital signature.
> Unsigned messages will still be sent to the list.  There need be no
> change in the way that one sends and receives mail.

What about the *bounce* plan? If my posts get bounced, that'd qualify
as making my life harder. Or so it seems to me.

> I refuse the argument that toad.com server actions make anybody's life
> harder.

I can imagine many such actions that would make many people's lives
harder. A requirement to post in TeX, a stipulation that all posts use
a certain format, academic rules for footnoting, etc. All of these
sorts of "rules" can and do make lives harder. (I'm grappling with
specific format requirements for a paper to be published in a French
publication. Such format requirements have their advantages, and I
don't dispute the right of the French publishers to impose them, but
they undisputably make the lives of authors harder.)

> I'm not saying that these server actions would have no effect, far
> from it.  The effects are all in the social realm and have far more to
> do with peer pressure and social position than with technology.  Can
> it be said that being marked as a non-signer makes one's life harder?
> I think not, perhaps others feel otherwise.

Again, I thought the proposal was to ultimately reject non-signed
articles? That's a bit more that merely "being marked as a
non-signer."

Speaking of this, it's already pretty clear who signs and who doesn't.
What could be clearer than "----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE---"?

Why is anything further needed? If the proposal is to stamp a scarlet
letter on non-signers, it seems overly harsh, somewhat petty, kind of
insulting, and not needed. Cypherpunks can clearly see who signs, who
doesn't, and can decide what they wish to do with messages.

I don't wish to sound angry, as I'm not, really. This is a fascinating
issue unto itself, worthy of discussion.

--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
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, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: 
subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tcmay