Re: Cypherpunks as lobbying/propagandizing group

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

Julie Albright writes:

> 	You know- I know you all are more individualistic in nature, more
> anarchistic than to think of yourselves as belonging to an organized "group",
> but I am getting concerned about a certain disassociation with the
> political aspects of cryptography which I am seeing by some members of this
> list- especially the post awhile back which was of the tone of "leave it to
> the other guys to lobby and be political, etc" - meaning throwing the
> responsibility over to the EFF people, etc. While I am sure that they are

I think you're conflating several different opinions. Some want to
lobby, some want to talk algortithms. Some say they are leaving the
list because too much political discussion is happening, others that
not enough is happening.

Such is the nature of a group like our. Anyone is obviously free to go
out an lobby. But just as I am not in a position to represent _you_,
so, too, no group or indidual out there is in a position to represent
_me_.

Like, I said, anyone can represent themselves, can lobby, can promote
petitions, can phone Congresscritters, and all that. Some of us do
this, as a matter of fact. And some of us talk on radio shows, are
interviewed for magazines and newspapers, and so on. What more can be
wanted? Let anyone lobbying that we--as a group--start to *do more*
themselves do more.

> organized to lobby in this sort of way, my original thoughts on rallying
> some of us together was not to try to form yet another lobbying
> organization, but rather, to perhaps "fight fire with fire" with some of
> the media bad press that we are getting as subscribers to this list, and as
> Clipper-opposers.

Deservedly or not, our press has been much more positive than
negative. Cf. the pieces in "Wired," "Whole Earth Review," "The
Village Voice," and "The New York Times" (only a brief mention there).
I can't think of much bad press, frankly. (The NSA guy's comment about
Woodstock and trig homework, maybe, but that was more than countered
by Bruce Sterling's closing talk at CFP and other talks. No big deal.)

> 	Lastly, there has been talk about the old-timers on this list
> "sitting back and waiting while the 'newbies' talk over things which have
> been said before (politically, I take it)- the thing is, the cryptography/
> Clipper policy is being designed and debated *now*- I can't see how
> whateve you all talked about 3 years ago can really be relevent to what's
> going on in the media today regarding this important issue. It seems to me
> this isn't a static, circular discusion, but rather a continuous, ongoing 
> thread which is informed by the media on a day to day basis..And  unless
> you all are amazingly clairvoyant, it would have been hard to know all the
> events which are going on now three years ago.

As one of the old timers, some comments:

* I haven't said I won't participate....in fact, I still write a lot.
So do other old-timers.

* The "Clipper debate" started in earnest exactly a year ago, not "3
years ago." My Clipper folder has 4 MB of mail and articles in it,
refecting only the small fraction of mail I kept on the topic. It
continues to be debated, here and in the Usenet discussion groups.
Several of us have written at length about it, and others are always
free to.

So, I don't follow the point about how the old timers are letting the
newbies do all the debating....

It is true that certain comments, along the lines of "What are some
arguments against Clipper?," are not conducive to debate (to put it as
politely as I can). Interesting comments, or new perspectives, or even
articles that indicate the author has at least read some of the FAQ
materials distributed frequently in the Usenet groups, are likelier to
generate responses. (And this was equally true a year ago, by the way;
to participate in a debate one needs to have a certain common
vocabulary and an awareness of the main issues.)

Having said this, there are many who are tired of the same old Clipper
debates. There's no argument that will make most of us accept the
concept of "key escrow," so what's to debate?

And like I said, there are plenty of grassroots political
opportunities for those interested. 

--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."