From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 17:18:46 +0800
To: tcmay@got.net
Subject: Cypherpunk Elitism
Message-ID: <01I0FSH7GNG4A0UNXY@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


       This message has some components that may be deemed appropriate for
the list, and some that will not; since Dr. May considered it an
appropriate topic, I am following his lead. However, feel free to take it
to private email.

From:          IN%"tcmay@got.net" 18-JAN-1996 08:09:37.98

>(Ironically, I brought up the new book, "The Winner Take All Society,"
at the last Cypherpunks meeting.  No time to discuss it here, but it
confirms my strong belief that we are heading for a economy in which a
shrinking fraction of workers have really valuable things to contribute,
and a growing fraction of the population does not.  I had not recalled
the authors, but Strick had a battery-powered laptop and Metricom
wireless modem, and ran an Alta Vista search from where he was sitting:
ROBERT FRANK & PHILIP COOK, The Winner-Take-All Society, New York: The
Free Press.)
----------------------------
       You might also find Robert Reich's _The Work of Nations_
interesting. He divides jobs up into Routine Producers (factory-line
workers), In-Person Servers (McDonald's clerks), and Symbolic Analysts
(innovative programmers, scientists, etcetera). His analysis does have
some problems. He views the growing lack of Routine Producer jobs in the
US as due to their export to low-wage countries; I would add automation
as another cause. He also makes the error of regarding education as the
primary (or even only) difference between those qualified for various
jobs, completely ignoring IQ's genetic component. His policy suggestions
for taking care of what he (incorrectly) believes is a problem are also
ridiculous.
-----------------------------

From:          IN%"alano@teleport.com" "Alan Olsen" 19-JAN-1996 00:00:39.70

>I have seen a number of posts on "Cypherpunk Elitism".  I have seen more
examples of it here on the list.

I think that this attitude will be more destructive to the list than
noise in the long run.

It has been said that "Cypherpunks write code".  They must do more than
that.  Cypherpunks need to teach.

All the cryptotools in the world are of no use if no one knows how to use
them.  (Or know how to use them correctly.) All of the protocols are of
no use if no one knows how to impliment them correctly or WHY they need
them in the first place.

There are a lot of bogus security methods.  Many of them exist because
people do not know better.  Without someone to instruct them in the ways
of these things, they will continue to go on with bad crypto, not knowing
any better.

Not all of the non-cypherpunks are beyond hope.  Many of them are
teachable.   If we leave them to flounder on their own, cryptography will
be something used only by an elite.  It will be of little or no threat to
the powers that be because only a small amount of people will have the
ability to use it.   The TLAs will have less encrypted trafic to sort
through.  They will have won a big battle, not through force of arms but
force of egos.
----------------------------
       Part of this depends on the size of the "small number of people,"
and on whom those people are. If a hundred people are using the
remailernet, governments can trace messages (and can easily shut the
down). If a million people are using it, governments cannot trace
messages nearly as easily, and there will be more protest if it is shut
down.
       If the people who are needed for a society to function are in that
group, then a government would need to be suicidal to attack them; these
people can also much more easily leave for another country. If those with
the most income to lose via income taxes are those who are using fully
anonymous ecash, then most of the government's unneeded revenue goes
away.
       In other words, while teaching about cryptography is important...
certain people are more worth teaching than others. This fact is
analogous to that certain people will be more competent after college
than others. Such qualities as intellectual ability, income, and position
make some people more worth convincing than others.
       Incidentally, there is a mailing list for the discussion (and
promotion) of intellectual Elitism. Its Draft FAQ (including directions
for signing on) is at http:/ils.unc.edu/~vreer/elitefaq. (The list in
question is unfortunately currently more disorganized than cypherpunks).
More information can also be found at
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~lfletch/elitism.html and
http://ils.unc.edu/~vreer/elitism.html.
       -Allen