What's Wrong with the List

[tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)]

I agree completely with Jef Poskanzer's observation:

(Ironically, experienced list members generally avoid "I agree"
comments, which means disagreements over the basics generally get more
"air time" than agreements. This is a related point to the one Jef is
making, and is the reason I'm speaking up here to agree with him.)

> By the way, this discussion is an example of something I have labelled the
> "silence is invisible" phenomenon.  It goes like this: there's a discussion;
> some of the participants work out an answer, and as far as they're concerned
> the discussion is over.  However, other participants don't understand the
> answer, and keep on talking.  In a physical meeting, the talkers would
> notice the annoyed looks on the faces of everyone else; or if the meeting
> had a good facilitator, he or she would catch on to the misunderstanding
> and correct it; but in cyberspace, those feedback mechanisms don't happen.

An important observation! I'm sure many of us who've been on the list
for a long time (since the start for many of us, without a break!) are
feeling frustrated at the same old tired topics being aired
and--worse--the same old errors being promulgated.

Supposedly new ciphers, rehashes of TEMPEST, continuous explanations
of "stenography" by people who don't know how to spell it, and so on.
Every one of these tired topics get rehashed every month or so by a
new "entering class." Since there's no moderation, the "senior class"
can't really stop the freshmen from going on about some pet theory.

(Not to trash pet theories, you understand. We all have them. I just
want to _again_ encourgage newcomers to do several things. First, read
the list for a while--perhaps a month--before making serious posts.
Second, read some of the crypto literature. Third, read sci.crypt and
talk.politics.crypto and bear in mind that this list is not meant to
be a substitute for either. Fourth, read what other people write and
carefully think about the implications. That ought to do for starters.)

When the list had 300 people, a year or so ago, this was beginning to
be a problem, but at least the topics were relatively fresh for many
folks. Now, a year later, there are more than 750 people on the
list. A continuous input of new subscribers. A constant stream of
rehashed ideas and perpetuated mistakes.

(Don't get me wrong, though! Some new ideas and new code from folks
like Product Cypher have been fantastic! But a lot of newcomers seem
unaware of the basics of crypto and want to "share" their thought
processes with all 750 subscribers. Some are even speaking favorably
of Clipper and key escrow....one wonders why they are on this list.)

Anyway, I don't want to sound like I'm dismissing newcomers to the
list. I'm just agreeing with Jef's observation and suggesting that too
many topics are being taken over by the "clue challenged."

Read the literature! Or at least parts of it. Read the stuff in the
Cypherpunks archive site (soda.berkeley.edu, in pub/cypherpunks),
including the "Glossary" that Eric Hughes and I put together for the
first Cypherpunks meeting in September, 1992.

Yes, a FAQ is sorely needed. I'm still working on a FAQ for this list,
but I fear it will largely go unread by many of the folks who need to
read it the most. Please prove me wrong.

--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."