Characterizing Cypherpunk Culture

["L. Detweiler" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>]

- E.Hughes: public vs. private
- Cypherpunk culture research materials
- CryptoAnarchist Manifesto and Cypherpunk Charter
- True Name detection
- an introspective note

E.Hughes, Mysterious Cypherpunk Leader
---

In my extensive research into Cypherpunk pseudospoofing culture, I've
come up with a lot of apparent contradictions in what is known about
the mysterious figure, E.Hughes in particular. It would be an
understatement to say that he values his privacy! Anyway, his mail to
me under his True Name is always very terse, and I'm not allowed to
publicly quote any of his tentacles without violating the
Pseudospoofing Religion (I wouldn't want to offend anyone or break any
taboos). So, in my interest in profiling the culture and its leaders,
I'm hoping that some CA cypherpunks interested in promoting their
ideology and their leader can help fill in the blanks.

One thing I have stumbled on is the cryptic references to tax evasion
and black marketeering. It appears that he may be alluding to these in
his public speeches. This based on mail by A.Chandler (another person
who is hard to track down). Can anyone elaborate on these? This would
certainly not be an invasion of his privacy. No transcripts are
available, unfortunately. Also, it never seems that these speeches are
announced ahead of time. Does anyone issue these announcements
officially? For example, E.Hughes popped up at the Austin EFF meeting
awhile ago and there didn't seem to be any advance warning to the list
at large so that people might attend. I'm sure he wants to maximize his
exposure and the Cypherpunk `movement'.

Also, a prominent cypherpunk told me that E.Hughes had proseletyzed the
religion of pseudospoofing to him, so to speak, and that the latter was
his great inspiration in setting up a site to permit it. Mr. Hughes
never has publicly stated anything on pseudospoofing, except that `that
which cannot be enforced should not be prohibited' and `the claim that
a person should be limited in pseudonyms represents a profound
misunderstanding.' Is he promoting it behind the scenes?

Another thing about Mr. Hughes I don't understand, and has always
baffled me -- a long time ago he posted a statement about some kind of
Unix email message log files, a standard and well-known UNIX file, and
Mr. Finney or someone corrected him and said, `You have rather
demonstrated your lack of Unix knowledge'. Well, I was greatly confused
by that then, and even more so today. Mr.Hughes, from my personal mail,
strikes me as someone who is a mastermind of Unix software, nooks and
crannies, and security weaknesses. Maybe even SMTP and DNS (Mr. Metzger
is an authority on the latter). Sort of the `hacker ethic'. I wonder if
that little statement was actually a disinformation stab, to prevent
others from suspecting his amazing prowess! And if H.Finney was
E.Hughes' tentacle, that would explain some things too! I also wonder
if T.C.May's professed aversion to Perl code is in the same category.
(This is really a shrewd way to throw off people who are into those
annoying `investigations'.) I would like to look at any software Mr.
May has written. Also, he seems to have a great fluency for the Mac,
which would make for some other great portrayals.

Another mysterious reference is that of collaboration between A.Abraham
and E.Hughes. I believe T.C.May remarked that they are working on
digital cash protocols. I got the impression that they may be running
the site ah.com (`Abraham-Hughes'). Do they grant accounts to anyone
who requests? Like A.Chandler? A.Chandler said that he posts to the
future-culture list, and told me he has written some books, but I can't
find them, and he is evasive in email. Is A.Abraham posting to the list
under different pseudonyms? could someone tell me what they are? (I got
a bizarre mail error sending him something once, maybe an SMTP expert
or someone from crl.com can help me. Who maintains that site, anyway?)
A. Abraham also popped up in RISKS lately, saying that he had watched
my `deterioration'. Thanks for your concern, but I am quite all right,
and alive and well! (A., I'm not sure where you got the idea I was
`deteriorating' -- I haven't sent you any mail over many weeks, unless
you have been tickling me with some tentacles out there, hee hee. Or
maybe you are just privy to my private mail to the `inner circle'.)

I'm sure that many will criticize my inquiries above as `invasions of
privacy'. That, after all, is what the cypherpunks stand for! Let me
assure you that is not my intent whatsoever. I simply wish to
understand the Cypherpunk culture in all its grandeur, and promote it
accurately to  the concerned public, who may perceive it as quite
subversive! (Markoff called you `the most self consciously ornery
group', but I realize that's quite an understatement!) But let me say
that I think true leaders with integrity have always had to sacrifice
teir privacy. It is a basic requirement of fame and influence -- in
holding one's achievements up for public scrutiny, the public affords
you greater reputation. Shirking from the public, particuarly in
response to their simple entreaties, is counterproductive and extremely
damaging. After all, if you have nothing to hide, you can be proud of
your public reputation, and look at it as a hard won accomplishment for
your diligent and honest efforts. This is how you establish that all
important element of *trust* among the public, who will perceive you
less as a subversive threat than a privacy advocacy group! (A less
subversive title, like the self-proclaimed `radical libertarian' P.
Metzger advocates in RISKS, `the government keeping its fingers out of
our affairs.')

Research Materials
---

CA meeting minutes are nonexistent as well. People seem very hostile to
documenting them. It's quite annoying, discouraging, frustrating, and
unfortunate. I'm interested in tracking the progress of the digital
cash and identity obstruction infrastructures under development.

I don't understand why CA Cypherpunks are so secretive about their
projects. I thought they were interested in collaborations, based on
the public mailing list. There's a distinct feeling that the CA people
are `insiders' and everyone else is just the audience. I guess this
could be one reason that people shriek so much over pseudospoofing
accusations here -- they see the distinct boundary between `them' and
`us', but promote the deception for `them'.

This is partly my concern in the `secret mailing list'. If there is
one, I think the CA 'punks should be honest about it and not deceive
anyone else. In fact, I think that maybe the CA 'punks should just have
their own mailing list unless they want to publicize and collaborate
with anyone in Cyberspace, not just whoever can make it to their CA
meetings. What is the criteria for people to get on the secret mailing
list, `project development free of paranoid ranters', anyway? Do you
have to be in CA? Is pseudospoofing outlawed on that list? I always
thought that *this* list was for project development, but of course now
realize it's just the public cypherpunk international PR outlet.

One thing I wonder about the intensely secretive Cypherpunks. Don't you
think that the Internet was pretty much built up with entirely public,
open debate and interaction? With things like cooperation and
collaboration between people, instead of hostile flames between
different cliques? Do you think you have the right attitude, conducive
to harmony in future Cyberspace? It seems to me all these secret
conspiracies and quasi-criminal philosophies are somewhat fundamentally
against the grain of a hospitible Cyberspace. Well,  as I always say,
`to each his own!' or `live and let live!' as long as no criminals are involved!

Also, I thought I heard something about cypherpunk archives somewhere,
by Al Whaley, maybe at cpsr.org. Does anyone know anything about that?
It seems to me an archive would be a great project. Who has archives,
and to how far back to they go? G.Broiles was telling me he had a
pretty good collection. (I consider him one of the most imaginative
authorities on cypherpunk culture I've had the privilege of talking to!).

The Cryptoanarchist Manifesto & CypherPunk Charter
===

The Cryptoanarchist Manifesto by T.C.May and the Cypherpunk Charter are
very interesting, but they seem to be speaking metaphorically --
`thinly veiled', as I believe P. Metzger wrote in RISKS. They never
refer directly to things like tax evasion, although the former does
hint at what might be referred to as `cyberspatial guerrilla warfare'
-- clearly a central tenet to the cypherpunk agenda. (see soda.berkeley.edu).

One thing that I wanted to ask everyone's opinion on. At the end of the
CryptoAnarchist Manifesto there is a references to a revolution that
ensued `barbed wire fences' -- useful social infrastructures that
protect private property rights, etc. But suddenly, Mr. May ends the
essay with `you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences'. This
was quoted in the NYT article.

My question: this doesn't make sense to me unless `barbed wire' is a
metaphor for something else. It seems to me that the Cypherpunks would
want to advocated `barbed wire' in the sense that it protects their
privacy rights! But the metaphor appears to go deeper than that. I
think `barbed wire' may actually be a metaphor for *identity* and
`fences' are the aspects of social institutions (such as laws and
customs) that protect identities, such as  proper attribution,
crediting, etc. The cypherpunks, of course, are more interested in
*blurring* those distinctions with things like misquoting, pseudopools,
pseudospoofing, impersonation, etc. than in Privacy itself. (`you have
nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences.'). The metaphor makes
sense in this interpretation!

The two documents are full of these kinds of subtle, invisible
metaphors. In fact, a very large amount of postings and email by the
`cypherpunk culture' are! Boy, I was quite deluded to think that the
`cypherpunks are what they stand for' so to speak. I would appreciate
if anyone knowledgeable could clarify their meaning (especially the
authors! but that is a lot to hope for right now!)

The lack of a basic document describing the Cypherpunk agenda by top
leadership in pseudospoofing is definitely constraining and a serious
obstacle to describing the Movement (given that it forms the invisible
core of it) but, as everyone can attest, that hasn't deterred me so far.

(BTW, I have to properly credit S.Boxx as helping me come to the
`barbed wire == identity restrictions' idea. Thanks!)

True Name Detection
---

One thing I don't understand, either. J.Dinkelacker once talked about
the list in long, introspective terms about being a Game with different
Opponents and Teams and Names. (I can dig this up if anyone wants to
see it.) I never fully understood that message -- it is deep with many
metaphors and even allusions to Extropians. The thing that is puzzling
about it was that at the time, J. Dinkelacker was a list newcomer, and
newcomers generally don't comment on the long history of the list like this!

The thing that was most fascinating about the post, however, was the
apparent allusion of the distinction in `True Name' vs. pseudospoofed
posts here -- he compared True Name posts to the pseudoanonymous ones,
and said they were all pretty much the same, and that True Name posts
had been easily as hot as the worst Pseudospoofed ones. 

But my question -- how could he tell the difference?

N.Szabo has also made references to support being measured by `how many
True Name' posts take one's side. N.Szabo also recently suggested that
he is a tentacle, that he was retiring as one, and that the CA
cypherpunks were quite amused by the `detweilering' (is that the right
term?) exorcisms. This is interesting because it also confirms the `CA
Pseudospoofing Clique-Conspiracy' scenario. `Mr. Szabo', are you really
a tentacle? (Unfortunately, as pseudoanonymous posting goes, I've never
gotten an honest answer to this question to date!) I'm flabbergasted if
this is true, because you have built up such a tremendous
net.reputation in many quarters. Would you be willing to tell me what
you True Name is? Because you allude to my private mail and telephone
calls to some cypherpunks (who you say have `compromised their privacy'
in giving me their phone numbers, I'm not sure why) I think you must be
in the thick of things! Your knowledge would be extremely valuable at this point.

If someone else was posting under J.Dinkelacker or N.Szabo, I'd really
like to talk to you. How do you know which posts are real, and which
ones are fake? Is there a group of you people out there, who can tell,
and have fun with this exclusive information? Obviously, being able to
separate the Snakes from the Medusa Sisters is critical to
understanding most of the traffic here! People who didn't see the
distinction might become quite frustrated after awhile, especially from
mail in their private mailboxes! I guess that those with tentacles
would be upset if they are complimented, too -- they would want to
reserve the powerful reputation-influencing right to compliment or
criticize others for themselves. (That reminds me of all the flames I
got over my facetious L.D. Cypherpunk Awards.)

This cypherpunk culture sure is baffling sometimes. NYT and Wired
articles only scratch the surface. (I suspect that letter to Wired on
the subject was pseudospoofed, maybe eminent cypherpunk S. Sandfort,
who has written for the magazine repeatedly, can clarify.) There are
definitely many layers. Who knows what lies concealed at the center!
Future anthropologists are going to have quite a difficulty in
characterizing it! What we have here is an elaborate hoax far
surpassing War of the Worlds -- except that when the `show was over'
Orson Wells quit and apologized over the public uproar!

an introspective note
---

BTW, perhaps a hundred cypherpunks or tentacles have criticized my
`florid' style over the months (great term, T.M.!). I have to credit
A.Abraham as being one of the first great Cypherpunk Flamers to my
mailbox on the topic. I tried over the past week to change my style a
little, with short snippets with less organization and information,
less indexing, no headings, less original material, no
`congratulations' or intense analyses (obviously, everyone knows what
everything means anyway, and these are far better left to the
tentacles, so they can improve their reputations) more long quoting
(like the `pseudopool' joke, hilariously funny), less attention to
actual current dialogue, great hostile, ad hominem flames in the spirit
of PM's best, terse statements with the utmost brevity and none of that
nagging elaboration in deference to EH's `concision', none of those
tedious informative forwarded materials that you've already seen, no
independent reporter-style inquiries of prominent people like J.
Bidzos, etc. This is all to accomodate the cypherpunks who have sent me
hundreds of telegrams complaining about my more well-written pieces. I
apologize for all of you in taking your valuable time in your mandatory
readings of my dense prose. I'm sure the Cypherpunks list is a far
better place, with many new people being converted and projects being
accomplished, without my endless, blathering drivel, such as long,
meandering paragraphs that seem to contain a lot of important
information and complex, prolix vocabulary, but are really nothing but
a `borg paranoid rants' according to the eminent cypherpunk newbie J.
Dinkelacker, a `tale of sound and fury, told by an idiot, signifying
nothing', like the brilliant pseudonymous dramatist Shakespeare once
wrote, who could have been Francis Bacon, but because of someone's
ingenious facade, no one really knows or gives a damn, and ingenious
and eloquent cypherpunks like E.Hughes, T.C.May, A.Abramson, G.Broiles,
H.Finney, N.Szabo, and P.Metzger, and all those other wacky and
conspirational pseudospoofing CA cypherpunks, interested in saving
Humanity from the Draconian Orwellian Totalitarian Oppressive Evil
Corrupt and downright Unpleasant Gubberments to replace them with
CryptoAnarchy and Digital Terrorism, Espionage, Sabotage, and Warfare
(all's fair in love and war!), even to the extent of brainwashing
honest people and demonizing and stalking opponents like S.Boxx and
G.Spafford into quivering insanity and poisoning cyberspace and
corrupting DNS databases and SMTP software and keyservers with toxic
waste and establishing imaginary interstate telephone numbers and
accounts and fake media accounts by insiders that all unequivocally
prove their unique existence and dominance over `lesser intelligences'
by raping and their white virgin minds and urinating on their Beliefs
(the raw power of which is Liberating), or, that is, particularly in
these cases, use this brilliant Shakespearean metaphor to no end in
their clever disinformation campaign surpassing that of War of the
Worlds and NeverEnding, under the leadership of the most evil
megalomaniac since Hitler with hideously majestic plans for World
Domination far surpassing His Royal Eminence, as documented in RISKS
15.25 and 15.27 and 15.x (?) by the insane man but brilliant satirical
exorcist on his holy jihad, which has spread to very many lists such as
the `Internet Mercantile Protocols' list and CERT's only being the mere
tip of the tentacles, so to speak!

I remain yours -- the humble historian-servant of the Cypherpunks.