Re: alt.whistleblowers

[ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu]

>Some comments on alt.whistleblowers from an (up to now) lurker. In brief,
>this strikes me as being a very foolish idea. 
>   My suspicion is that a forum providing unlimited ability
>   for people to anonymously post undocumented accusations against 
>   powerful people will be summarily ignored, not just by the targets
>   of the accusations, but by everybody else with an actual life.

Mr. Kinney's comments annoy me tremendously. They bespeak a lukewarm,
lackadaisical, and wishwashy view of something of extreme importance.
Frankly, it bothers me that it has taken this long just to get the
whistleblower group going. I don't think anything is being accomplished
by delaying newsgroup creation.  It just gives people who are enemies
more time to mount a concerted attack against this new blip in the status quo.

Where is your trademark cypherpunk fanaticism, Mr. Kinney? Do you wear
a suit and tie and go to endless meetings debating the relative merits
of implementing a given policy? Where is your passion? Where is your
*impatience*?  Where is your frustration that nothing seems to be happening?

The point is that these things will start out unpolished and become
refined. But they don't become refined by people debating their
theoretical implications in a vacuum. They get refined when problems
*arise* from *use*.  That is the place where unforeseen merits and
demerits are discovered (the unanticipated ones discovered in practice,
I assure you, are always the most significant).  Julf's server is a
beautiful example of the evolution of an unrefined idea into a
practical and increasingly sophisticated reality.

It alarms me tremendously that word leaked out about the whistleblower
group at the Freedom and Privacy conference (attended by such
luminaries as e.g. D. Denning, and don't ask what the D. stands for);
and that a former C.I.A. official has ideas on how to filter out the
"noise". I find this quite nauseating.  The greatest inventions are not
the result of people who sought to reduce risks. It is precisely this
risktaking (and yes, somewhat cavalier attitude) that produces the breakthrough!

>   The tools available to accomplish this task (PGP, remailers, anon servers)
>   are certainly impressive, but I really don't think they're well developed
>   enough yet to give cause for much confidence in taking on the government
>   and the entire U.S. corporate sector in a frontal assault. 

We are all playing with toys right now in the hope that they become
entrenched and refined.  Which they will, inevitably! Because they are
good ideas! (Time is the universe's mechanism for rewarding good
ideas!)  Yesterday's Apple II is today's Quadra.  Paved roads started
out as rocky dirt paths, and in retrospect they look quaint, but they
progressed because they were well-trodden.  People just used them.  If
you think that new technology starts out any other way, then I'm
impressed with your naivete...

>-- Is this really in line with the purpose of the Cypherpunks? To quote from
>   the charter

well, let me put it this way--if it isn't virtually the essence of
Cypherpunkhood (challenging entrenched, ineffective, mediocre, bloated,
or even corrupt and sinister authority through revolutionary new
technology) then what is? What is your vision? Or do you prefer not to
have one because they are so inconvenient and uncomfortable to pledge
allegiance to, to nourish and sustain?  Because they force you to
rethink some of your most beloved and rooted prejudices? Because they
require such devotion and sacrifice?

> PATIENCE is the most important prerequisite
>   for success.

patience has its place *after* all possible means for advancement have
been employed. This `patience' thing of yours seems to me like a
euphemism for `chill out'.  Patience is for saints.  Impatience is for
humans. Agitation is for cypherpunks.

>Wouldn't everybody be better served by quiet, patient development and
>distribution of tools, instead of a huge juvenile "FUCK YOU!" to people
>who could really care less? Let's not piss away a solid foundation with
>cheap theatrics.

Is that your perception of this project? Do you think that the creation
of the newsgroup is equivalent to advocating that statement? Where do
you find such animosity? How is it that something so intrinsically
neutral such as creating a newsgroup be twisted into an act of evil
rebellion and subversion? Is it possible that you should be embarrassed
by reading a bit more into cypherpunks than is there? Is it possible
that you have some agenda we don't know about?

The whistleblower newsgroup will be quite like any other newsgroup.
There will be plenty of noise and unverifiable froth and fizz. We will
work toward trying to improve that content, but it is always a case of
`caveat emptor'. It is a ridiculously impossible ideal to attain of
having a group with only the `truth' posted.  We are not setting out to
replace the entire world government today (although, as for *tomorrow*...)

I think the freedom in posting is the very essence of the whistleblower
group. I think it might be interesting to promote the idea of different
groups, each with different levels of verifiability. The lowest level
would have completely unverified claims and *totally* free posting
(esp. anonymity). Higher groups would have more important mechanisms to
ensure the quality of the information (moderation, prerequisites to
posting, digital signatures, etc.)  I imagine that the verifiable and
meritorious claims would tend to "rise" to higher groups where people
with much higher reputations toss around the data.

(Actually, I can imagine all of Usenet of the future working like this,
with various `tiers' that people can pick at will. People into totally
rabid free speech can subscribe to the raw unfiltered stuff, and at the
other end of the spectrum, all the PC academics into diversity but no
offensiveness to sensitive sensibilities can subscribe to the groups
where a few happy-sunny-whee messages slip through a day...)

p.s. I hate to jab a self-admitted lurker so bluntly, but this reminds
me of Lincoln's advice that ``it is better to be silent and thought a
fool than to speak up and remove all doubt''... Mr. Kinney, maybe we
should call you back in a few years when everything is commercialized,
corporate, conservative, and soulless enough for your tastes.