From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 12:57:45 +0800
To: Alex Strasheim <cp@proust.suba.com>
Subject: Re: "cybertage"
In-Reply-To: <199601191846.MAA12766@proust.suba.com>
Message-ID: <199601202037.MAA01384@netcom19.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



From: Alex Strasheim <cp@proust.suba.com>
>> how about a new term for all the various enemies of cyberspatial 
>> advancement?
>
>I think this is a bad idea.  We should be moving away from demonization, 
>not towards it.  

well, around the turn of the century, Luddites were smashing looms with
hammers. we have not quite reached that stage, but the negativity, 
hyperbole, and paranoia sown by "cyberteurs" engaging in "cybertage"
has a similar effect, and may eventually turn into the same form.

by "demonization" I tend to imagine that this means one insists the
evil soul must get no sympathy, compassion, or help. quite the opposite
I believe with "cyberteurs"-- they just need a little education to
lose their own antagonism. 

I am no way advocating a holy war; only suggesting
that we try to create a STIGMA with the position that there is something
evil about cyberspace, just as the opponents have already created a
STIGMA associated with cyberspace to some degree. 

there is already a
stigma associated with cyberteurs and cybertage-- I am only suggesting
that it be made more distinct through the terminology.

>We are right, and they are wrong.  The good thing about being right is
>that logic and the facts will bear us out.  Let's use rational arguments,
>not name calling.  Save the nasty names for another fight when you're
>wrong and the other guy is right.  

its a label. what is the difference between calling someone a "saboteur"
or a "cyberteur"? are you going to argue that the media etc. are *not*
sabotaging cyberspace through some of their more odious actions? to the
contrary, I see these terms as "reality checks".

your smugness and complacency is alarming. I agree that they hold the
losing position in *theory*, but reality is not about what is best
in theory. that which is best doesn't win out to an extensive PR
campaign, often. being "correct" is not enough in a world of people
who believe in incorrect philosophies; one must broadcast one's correctness
to the world, and terminology is heavily important in this endeavor.

>We should build a case to show that everyone -- including those who
>disagree with us -- will be better off if we win.  It's the truth, so we
>ought to be able to come up with good arguments.

I am all for this, while at the same time suggesting that "cybertage"
being sown by some demagogues is out of line. I am not proposing that
every opponent of some form of "cyberspace" be labelled a "cyberteur",
only the more radical ones, such as Exon etc.

>Unfettered access to strong crypto is in everyone's intrest.  It's good
>for business and it's good for civil liberties and freedom around the
>world.  These are not complicated things to grasp.  If we get our message
>out there, we will win.

a big part of getting a message out is terminology.

>Lotus has made a mistake.  Their gak plan won't reassure international
>customers, which is to say it won't do what they want it to do.  So why do
>it? Instead of calling them names, let's explain why it was a bad idea. 
>Let's try to explain to Lotus customers why it's a bad idea.  If we can do
>that, we'll get a response.

you seem to be awfully naive. from their perspective, the product may
become a rousing success, moving into areas they weren't able to penetrate
prior to their decision. why do you think they "made a mistake"? I doubt
any executive will think that even after a lot of attempted persuasion.

I'm all for your approaches. I wouldn't call Lotus a "cyberteur" engaging
in "cybertage". I would however talk about them in the following way:

"Lotus must be careful not to continue to pursue their course of action
or they may begin to bear the stigma of a cyberteur engaging in cybertage".

you see? I didn't actually *call* them anything. the stigma of the term
can be useful.

again, I am not in favor of holy wars. if something can be accomplished
through modest and minor means, by all means go for it. however in many
situations these means may have been exhausted and more shrill, guerrilla
tactics are required. I believe we are rapidly entering that realm this
moment with things like Digitial Telephony, Exon, NSA secret company
visits, etc.