From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 15:18:48 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Cypherpunk Inquest?
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961104231716.006ac1a0@pop.pipeline.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Return-Path: lzkoch@mcs.net
X-Sender: lzkoch@popmail.mcs.net
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 12:28:29 -0600
To: jya@pipeline.com
From: Lewis Koch <lzkoch@mcs.net>
Subject: Regarding a story for Upside Magazine

John Young:

This is an identical letter to a limited number of contributors to
Cypherpunks regarding an article I will be writing for Upside Magazine about
the Cypherpunks List -- its history and the current controversies it now
seems to be facing.

(I'm the person who uncovered the Gorelick/"Manhattan project" story. A more
recent "Cybersense" column dealt with Chicago Police Superintendent Matt
Rodriguez wanting to escape from a 1974 Federal Court injunction against
police department spying on "radicals" so that he could now join in on
investigating Cyberterrorists. See http://www.upside.com/ )  I will  be
writing a number of articles for the magazine itself.  I have been "lurking"
on Cypherpunks for about nine months with only one communications to the
list regarding a request for leads on "Snake Oil" stories.)

I would like to better understand and be able to explain to Upside readers
why several members have chose to "leave" the List.

Perry Metzger and others have argued that flaming and extraneous personal
attacks have negatively impacted serious discussions of encryption, hacking
and public policy and thus they have chosen to end their relationship and
their writings on Cypherpunks, with Metzger forming his own, moderated list.
Others contributors to Cypherpunks have argued that there have been
"distractions" rants about religion, assassination politics, and language
which are inappropriate for the List membership.

Late last week John Gilmore wrote and said he had taken steps to remove Dr.
Vulis from the list which has prompted differing responses.  Some have
responded positively to Gilmore's actions while others have said that it was
an affront to freedom of speech and individual decision-making.

(I have very deliberately chosen _not_ to make this an open letter to the
list, nor will I engage in any open List-dialogue about the people I am
interviewing or what I expect to write.  Naturally I will respond to
individuals once the article is published.)  

I do not expect to be able to publish your responses in their entirety.
They will be edited with honesty and clarity.   I have no agenda here.

I will consider all your written and/or phone communications to be "on the
record" unless you specifically wish prior selected and/or identified parts
of your communications to be "off the record" or "for background purposes
only."  I will _not_ publicly announce a full list of those I have
contacted.  While you are of course free to share this letter with others, I
have already made fairly firm decisions as to who I will contact.  I would
ask that your circulation be highly limited, if circulate you must.  On the
other hand, I will seriously consider suggestions you might offer me
regarding other people who you believe I should contacted regarding this
article. The article will be lengthy but I do not entertain the idea -- at
this point -- about expanding the article into a book length manuscript.
That doesn't mean that if thousands upon thousands gather outside by home
demanding more information, that sometime in the future...

I would prefer to communicate in the open, mainly because I am just now
somewhat tenuously managing PGP through Private Idaho. Those of you who
insist your communications be encrypted, well, it's probably good for my
soul that I honor your request.

Here are the questions I would like you to consider.  Please do not consider
them "definitive" or limiting.  If you believe I have missed out on pursing
certain avenues of thought and argument, please do not hesitate to point
them out to me.  I will note that I will be looking at the history of the
list and I have noted the letter from Hal Finney regarding
http://chaos.taylored.com:1000

I do not expect to write a general follow-up question to this entire list
but I may wish to seek further clarification from individuals from their
answers to this letter.

Thank you, in advance, for what I know will be thoughtful and considered
responses.
 
	*	*	*	*	*	*

1.  What was the original purpose of the Cypherpunks list and has it
changed?  For the better?  Worse?

2.  Does the apparent breakup reveal anything in general about unregulated,
unmoderated lists?  Can one make a link to the breakup to an inherent
failure in the concept of anarchism? Can one make a link from this breakup
to any insight in the nature of the Net itself -- both now and in the
future.     

3.  What do you think led to the  growing number of highly personal, highly
inflammatory attacks made on various contributors to the list -- Tim May
most especially. 

4.  Do you consider discussions about religion, assassination politics, and
other non- cryptographic/encryption subjects to be "distractions" or
substantive additions to intellectual inquiry?  Are some threads more
valuable than others?

5.  Has the list imploded or veered off in a new, positive direction?  



I would ask that you use the header "Cypherstory" in your response and
Cypherstory 1, 2 etc. for further communications, additions, changes.
**********************************************************
Thank you


Lewis Z Koch
lzkoch@mcs.net
http:www.upside.com/
"Cybersense" column