From: "David C. Lambert" <dcl@panix.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 09:10:59 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: An opportunity not to be missed
Message-ID: <199509131610.MAA26686@panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

It has occurred to me with the approach of the presidential campaign
in the US (and its attendant press frenzy), that there is an an
unprecedentedly vast opportunity to bring certain items on the
cypherpunk platform into the public spotlight.

There are two planks of this platform that I believe:

  1. would benefit from this exposure;
  2. would be relatively easy to inoculate among the press
     and/or the candidates (actually, inoculation of the
     candidates, with subsequent propagation by the rabid
     campaign press).

The first of these has to do with net.censorship, and formal
recognition under law of ISPs' common carrier status.  The second
concerns remailers.  I'll deal with each in turn.

I believe that, given the hunger of the candidates for as much
exposure as possible, that one of them might be persuaded to take a
part in the Scientology fracas.  (This would have to happen fairly
soon, since it looks like the Church <spit> is losing some major
battles lately - the brand new news from Denver re:FACTnet and the
ruling in VA concerning Arnie Lerma and the Washington Post).  The
desirable features of such a candidate might include: a certain amount
of current power, marginal current press exposure, fairly deep
pocketed financing, an anti- regulatory stance, and a smidgeon of net
awareness.  It should be fairly straightforward to convince such a
candidate that:

  1. there would be tremendous increase in exposure due to
     the songs of praise from netizens (whose influence is most
     likely to be overly discounted by campaign strategists,
     IMHO, at this point in time), and from the mainstream press
     (especially Time magazine and the Washington Post, for obvious
     reasons).

  2. that the exposure would be worth the peril of inviting
     the wrath of the Church <spit>.


The payback of the press coverage of such a candidate would be infection
of John Q. Public with the idea that ISPs are no more responsible for
content of carried messages than the phone company, and an anti-censorship
stance that does not make him (John Q.) pro-porn.  This last is a huge
flaw in the current battle for free speech on the net, IMO.  (Thank
you Marty Rimm.)  If this issue could be refocused, I think that
John Q. (and Jane) would find it much easier to support.

The second plank that could be potentially advanced is anonymity.  Anonymous
remailers in particular, but the benefits of anonymity to users of the
Net in general as well.

I propose that we get some likely candidate (actually, a similar candidate
to the one above) to advocate the benefits of anonymity on the net.  The
"spin" that would have to be used would depend on the particular candidate,
but let's for example we have:

     Candidate Posturing                    Required Spin
     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     Pro-business, tough on crime           anonymous crime tip e-mail
                                            a la Fed whistleblower stuff,
                                            and the SPA

     Pro-choice, womens' vote               anonymous support services


Of course, there are many more examples, but we'd have to see which postures
this campaign's candidates are going to pick.  Of course, I am somewhat
cynical in my advocation of the particular "Required Spins" (the SPA support,
especially), but I feel that the threats to privacy and public use of strong
encryption (which walks hand in hand with the use of the remailers, naturally)
are worth the potential risk on other fronts (the burgeoning software patent
silliness, eg).

You may ask why these candidates would be interested in this type of thing,
and my response is that they can be forced.  The religious right has no
problem bringing their agenda into the public spotlight and forcing their
issues onto candidates because of their willingness to use hyperbole and 
fanaticism (not to mention pressure on advertisers and other sponsors).

I believe that netizens in general, and cypherpunks in particular can
bring similar, and more reasoned, pressure to bear.  I think that our
job is easier than the religious right because it should be trivial to
enlist the support of the mainstream press on these issues, and to direct
the anti-federal ire that has been building in the US.  In addition,
Democratic candidates that are currently in office would love to have some
way of attacking the Republican plans for this session of Congress.  An
attack on net.censorship via the CDA and the telecomm bill could be seen
as the ideal place to attack the Republican agenda, and thereby the
success of Republican candidates in the presidential race.

<whew.>

Let the flames begin.

- - David C. Lambert
  dcl@panix.com
  (finger for public key)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMFcB+qpplsfgM88VAQFdewP9G0aHVTweUeCMa7J7Xhtu2R4cID6yP/J3
7WS5OicRWfl/hPRXj1Db74A9tDrkStEfobbL/2H6CsO9N4wZNgcDLQAa5MjX8ujf
0EF6v57nlcANb1qLJ5kmwfGj96PUMDtw00409tin3KssRAL0uz/lL9SWP/Mhj9q5
emZHYW3VC3c=
=bTsO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----