From: m5@dev.tivoli.com (Mike McNally)
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 07:57:34 PDT
To: trei@process.com
Subject: CYPHERPUNK considered harmful.
In-Reply-To: <9509131434.AA23717@toad.com>
Message-ID: <9509131453.AA31340@alpha>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Some comments (and note that I've just cleaned my white board, so I
may not be thinking too rationally):

Peter Trei writes:
 >      "Strong cryptography is a powerful new technology, of which the
 > widespread and unfettered use should be encouraged."
 > 
 >      Our error lies in our approach to encouraging the widespread use of
 > crypto. It is an error of hubris - overweening pride.

Hmm...  I don't think I completely agree with this; on the contrary,
the "senior members" of the list seem generally quite open and
understanding of the issues re cryptography for the general public.

 >      We too often think of ourselves as an elite - smarter and better in
        ^^ [ careful here... ]
 > various ways to our non-cpunk neighbours. We refer to these others as
 > 'Joe Sixpack" and other such derogatary terms. 
 >
 >      The problem is that in doing so we are marginalizing ourselves. 
 > 
 >      We call ourselves 'cypherpunks'. While this is derived from the SF
 > term 'cyberpunk', consider the image we are creating for ourselves:
 > 
 >      A 'punk' is a marginalized young adult, one who rejects the norms
 > of his or her society, and takes delight in irking those around him with
 > his or her rejection. The older of us will think of James Dean in 'Rebel
 > Without a Cause', or Brando in 'The Wild One'. Later, you get images
 > such as Peter Fonda in 'Easy Rider', and more recently, Sid Vicious and
 > other icons of the 'punk rock' movement.

I actually consider this a feature.  With a "straight" name for the
organization, like "International Cryptographic Interest Society" or
something, we run the risk of being co-opted into the "mainstream"
without even realizing it.

There's nothing wrong with being a punk, remember.  That the word is
weighted simply means that people have to overcome prejudice.  Indeed,
much of the motivations for boosting cryptography is to protec the
rights of every individual to be opt out of conformity.  If everyone
were normal & mainstream, who'd care about hiding anything?  What's to
protect?

 >     These punks are often romantic figures, but in reality they started
 > marginalized, remained marginalized, and died marginalized. They were
 > ineffective in changing the core values of the society ...

Whoooa there; can you really say that?  Can you really say that as
society absorbs marginalized fragments of the culture that there's not
a significant adjustment?

In 1955, if I walked down the street with tussled hair, a white
t-shirt covered by a ratty leather jacket, and messy jeans, I'd be an
"obvious" criminal delinquent; now, I'd be in a Calvin Klein add.
There's certainly a profound effect on culture wrought by the mere
existance of fringe groups, particularly if the groups can gain access
to media.

 >     We, the 'cypherpunks' have embraced this label, taking pride in our
 > technical abilities, and acting as if we can institute 'cryptoanarchy'
 > without getting a majority of the population to support us.

I think again that this is a generalization over the membership.  Some
do feel that way, and some don't; I think what you said above about
the uniting factor of wanting to see cryptography popularized is
accurate, and that's the theme that binds us together (if anything
does).

 >     This is a bad approach. The overwhelming majority of the US
 > population is not alienated from the US government, and regards with
 > suspicion those who are.

I wonder about that assertion.

 >      I suggest that we drop the term 'cypherpunk' - it has the wrong
 > connotations to get our ideas into the mainstream. I don't have a 
 > perfect replacement yet:
 > 
 > 1. I want to get away from the strings 'crypt' and c[iy]pher- they sound
 > too cloak-and-dagger.

That idea seems pretty much a fundamental one to be attacked in any
effort to popularize cryptography.

 > 2. It should imply that the labelees are level-headed, responsible
 > citizens, not longhaired weirdos.

Again, I think that making a strong statement every time the name of
the organization has to be read aloud by a newscaster is a feature.

 > 3. It should make itself difficult to invert - the classic example
 > is the pro-choice/pro-life dichotomy, where each side refuses to
 > acknowledge the other's terminology.

Is "cypherpunk" invertible?

 > 4. A cute and apropos acronym would help.

...  Sorry, I have to quit now; I need to borrow a fan before the
fumes knock me out.

In summary, I think your concerns are valid, but I'd hesitate to do
something radical like change the list name.  After all, think of all
the mail filter files that'd have to be fixed :-)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Nobody's going to listen to you if you just | Mike McNally (m5@tivoli.com) |
| stand there and flap your arms like a fish. | Tivoli Systems, Austin TX    |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~