At 15:07 4/12/2000 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>First, we have seen a lot of political junk discussion here lately, about
>the tired subjects of socialism, Microsoft, Nazis, and (presumably) even
>Heinlein.
>
>Second, code is indeed preferable to rhetoric.
Right. Cypherpunks has turned into a spam list, in which some 80 percent of
the posts are junk. Thoughtful folks have largely turned to some of the
other c-lists or even (to a much lesser extent) one of the lists I run.
I suspect it's because these subjects have become somewhat institutionalized:
* Instead of obscure cypherpunk types writing in the early 90s about how
governments will see their tax base wither because of jurisdictional
arbitrage online etc., it's the top story
(http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,35617,00.html) on news sites.
* Instead of the government attempting to ban private use of crypto, a
longtime cypherpunk fear, we've see increasing relaxation of rules. The
Feds argue Bernstein can do whatever he wants
(http://www.politechbot.com/p-00950.html), and we learned today the case
has been derailed for years, as it goes back down to the district court for
a rehearing.
* Instead of digital cash taking over the world, we're all using credit
cards. Cybercash has, I'm told, not just moved to credit cards, but it's
even purchased a cash register -- yep, the meatspace kind -- company.
* Instead of Zero Knowlege, the company that wanted to be as cypherpunkly
as possible, doing the right thing, it still has not released source code,
it has acquired exclusive rights to key patents and said it will not
license them freely, and it has not implemented (last I checked) basic
features like link padding in its technology.
* Instead of intelligent discussions about cutting-edge topics, we get Jim
Choate.
Some of the cypherpunkly goals have succeeded; online privacy is certainly
all the rage. Yet the responses seem so, well, weak, like enonymous.com's
quaint but seriously flawed rating scheme.
(http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,35587,00.html)
And now much of the focus is on corporate misbehavior, such as Doubleclick.
At last week's CFP conference, everyone was nattering about how Big Brother
is the corporation, or employer, or credit bureau, something that
cypherpunks do not have a detailed response to (except let contract law
sort it out, which is reasonable, but not satisfying enough for those who
fear the unknown, or the chaos of the marketplace). Privacy International
at CFP passed over the NSA to give its "lifetime achievement award" to some
obscure credit bureau. Congress is holding hearings this week on a federal
privacy commission, which would primarily regulate the private sector.
(http://www.mccullagh.org/cgi-bin/photosearch.cgi?name=privacy+commission)
That's just a symptom of the increasing bureaucratization -- if that's even
a word -- of the Net. We all know about Microsoft hiring Ralph Reed
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_709000/709254.stm) to
lobby George Bush. That may be interesting for political types, but it's
about as unremarkable from a cypherpunkly perspective as Netscape hiring
Bob Dole as a spokescritter, as they did a few years back. James Glassman
has written that "the environment that helped produce the high-tech boom --
low regulation, low taxes, minimal government intervention and a low level
of corporate rent-seeking -- is changing profoundly," and maybe he's right.
(http://www.politechbot.com/p-01067.html)
Tim wrote a few years back -- there's no date, but I'm guessing 1995
-- "Untraceable digital cash is here. It will become easier to use and
more established in the next several years."
(http://www.privacyexchange.org/iss/confpro/cfpuntraceable.html) He may
well turn out to be correct sometime in the future, but there's scant
evidence of it so far.
"It's going to be an exciting world," Tim wrote.
Not yet.
-Declan
At 15:07 4/12/2000 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>First, we have seen a lot of political junk discussion here lately, about
>the tired subjects of socialism, Microsoft, Nazis, and (presumably) even
>Heinlein.
>
>Second, code is indeed preferable to rhetoric.
>
>However, importantly, it is clear from recent discussions on the list and
>from at least one recent physical Cypherpunks meeting, that an increasing
>number of participants "just don't get it."
>
>There was, for example, a proposal by some people at a recent meeting that
>Cypherpunks should set up their own "certificate-issuing authority."
>
>This is a terrible direction to go in.
>
>Apparently we are not discussing politics _enough_.
>
>"Cypherpunks write code" may be a nice mantra, but when Cypherpunks write
>code in furtherance of statist and centralized missions, the results are awful.
>
>Let Verisign do anything it wants to do. A free country and all. But
>monkeywrench any and all attempts to make such "identity credentials"
>mandatory. In particular, do nothing to promulgate central Cypherpunks
>signature authorities.
>
>--Tim May
>
>--
>---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
>Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
>ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
>W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
>"Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
>
