Re: Cypherpunks Press release

[Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Sat, 30 Sep 1995, Jiri Baum wrote:

> It seems to me that there are two viewpoints, 
>   * a spokesman would be useful, and
>   * a spokesman cannot be appointed due to lack of org
> 
> Which both seem to be true to me . . .

Well, neither seems true to me.  I don't see how, in the first
analysis, a spokesman would be useful to ME.  I am a Cypherpunk
by virtue of being on the mailing list, but I doubt most, and
certainly not all, list members would agree with everything I 
believe about privacy, encryption, freedom and the government.
I know I don't believe in a lot of the stuff I read here.  Why
would any of us want a spokesman other than themselves?  So I
ask, "useful" to whom?

Second, the reason a spokesman cannot be appointed is not due
to lack of [an?] organization, but rather the lack of any
unifying creedo or statement of belief.  Had the list founders
said, "Cypherpunks is a list for people who believe X, Y and
Z.  Sign-up if you are one of us."  Then we might have an
"official" viewpoint which a spokesperson could help
articulate.  They didn't, we don't and, frankly, that's the
way I like it.

You want to express your views to the press?  Knock yourself
out.  You want to call yourself a "Cypherpunk"?  No one will
stop you.  You want to characterize what other Cypherpunks
say and believe?  You might say something I disagree with,
but again, no one will stop you.  (Of course, they may counter
your free speech with some free speech of their own, but that's
the name of the game.)

Yours in anarchy,


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~