I'm leaving cypherpunks

[bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells)]

A few things before I go. If you have any replies you want me to
see, you'll have to send them via private mail, since I no longer
get the list. This includes replies to my recent set of posts.

I was asked how to participate in the sexual abuse newsgroup.
That newsgroup is a standard Usenet-style newsgroup in the
altnet. You may not have it at your server because it has the
dreaded s-- infix. Explaining to your admin that the group is not
a porno group might get the group. If you want the group but, for
one reason or another don't care to ask your admin, you can write
me and I'll ask (without mentioning your name).

Alternately, I can send it to you via e-mail; it's fairly high
volume, though, running perhaps 50-60 messages a day. You can
post through one of the anonymous servers. Send to
anon-help@twwells.com for info on how to use mine.

Some of you may wonder why I'm leaving cypherpunks. Rjc seems
like a minor provocation, in comparison to Detweiler and some of
the lesser lights here. That's true and rjc is not why I'm
leaving.

I'm a firm believer in the right to privacy. And to the right to
possess and appropriately use the tools needed to secure it. That
much, I support the cypherpunks goal. However, I also believe
that this Brave New World of ours can go in more than one way. It
may become a dystopia in which people like rjc, and their more
powerful brethren, set the terms and tone, or it may approach a
utopia that enables its participants to make the most of what
they have.

We here at the beginning will make that choice. We'll do it *by*
*our* *actions*. Either we will choose to form a true _society_ of
privacy or we will permit cyberspace to descend into a war of all
against all. *We* choose.

We choose with each of our actions. Is this action based on a
fundamental respect for others or is it based on a desire for
self-aggrandizement? Does it further the end of healthy, human
interaction or is it destructive in nature and intent?

But as important as these individual contributions are, more
important is the attitude that is taken towards them. Are acts
such as rjc's considered acceptable behavior, to be tolerated
with all other sorts of behavior, or are they to be censured and,
where appropriate, censored?

In an uncontrolled environment, there is little that can be done
to further an appropriate attitude. One can reinforce the good
and censure the bad. And hope.

In a controlled environment, such as cypherpunks, those who
control the list have the final say. The excess of noise on this
can be *directly* traced to the list owner's choice to not
control its content. Rjc's ability to abuse another *and to
continue the abuse* is a direct consequence of the owner's
policies. These facts are, by themselves, offensive but would be,
barely, tolerable.

However, their consequences are not. Their consequences are a
furthering of the ends of people like rjc, a society in which
might makes right, and in which the potentials of others are
stifled by the hostility of those who prefer to rule rather than
grow.

And this I cannot support. Nor do I care to be associated with a
group that, intentionally or not, supports this. *This* is why
I'm leaving cypherpunks.

Privacy is a *social* phenomenon, not a technical one. There is
no sense in creating tools for privacy unless one also works for
a society in which the deployment of these tools makes sense.

One final thing before I go. I could set up a list on my machine
(not on the Internet but I connect fairly frequently because of
my server) with policies that address these issues, with the side
effect of dramatically improving the signal-to-noise ratio. If
this is of potential interest to you, let me know. If there is
sufficient interest I'll draw up a formal policy. If enough
people then say they'll sign up, I'll create the list.