David Mandl on Fri, 14 Mar 97 06:32 MET

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

nettime: Village Voice article

The Legendary Champions of Encryption Have Had It (Sort of)
Is This the End of Cypherpunks?
by Dave Mandl

The Village Voice, March 18, 1997
(c) 1997 The Village Voice

Nobody knows about the dangers of crypto-anarchy better than the
crypto-anarchists. In the five years since the formation of the
Cypherpunks--an influential group dedicated to the pursuit of privacy via
cryptography (the science of codes and ciphers)--the problems of a medium
regulated only by encryption and e-mail filters have been discussed
endlessly. With unbreakable codes available to everyone, what if murderers
or kidnappers use it to render their electronic correspondence unreadable?
What's to prevent hebephrenic nuts from making reasonable discourse
impossible? And in unrestricted forums like public mailing lists, how can
grossly off-topic posts and idle chatter be kept to a minimum?

In the case of the Cypherpunks, two of these questions weren't rhetorical.
With list membership as high as 2000, mail traffic of 100 or more messages
a day, and a fuzzily defined group charter, noise was high by anyone's
standards. Relatively few lunatics actively targeted the group for abuse,
but those were plenty. The most recent, when he wasn't relentlessly flaming
Cypherpunks list members, was building software to do it automatically. The
list's normally low-profile owner, John Gilmore, who already had his hands
full with heavy message traffic, decided he'd had enough. He warned the
kook to knock it off and then, when he refused, removed him from the list.

That's when the trouble started. While some Cypherpunks supported Gilmore's
decision as the only sensible action, many of the list's more ardent
free-speech advocates cried censorship, and a number of them--including
list cofounder Tim May (who ironically had been the main target of the
flames)--left in protest. Crypto-anarchy is about dealing with just these
kinds of dilemmas, the dissenters argued; anyone not wanting to hear the
rantings of a list member should use mail filters or other tools to
relegate them to the digital trash bin.

Meanwhile, as a compromise solution to the list's problems, member Sandy
Sandfort proposed to Gilmore that he be allowed to moderate the chat.
Sandfort would screen out all flames and other outright noise and ship them
to a flames-only list, where those interested would still be able to read
them. Gilmore agreed to give it a shot. This enraged many list members even
more. Not only did they consider list moderation inherently offensive, but
they resented having it proposed behind their backs and then presented to
them as a fait accompli. Nevertheless, the moderation experiment went

>From there, things got worse. In late January, people began to notice that
some messages were disappearing into thin air. Among these were messages
critical of a product sold by Sandfort's employer. Some list members
(including the one who'd been critical of the product) claimed that none of
their posts, even on-topic ones, were making it to *either* list. This
started a new round of accusations, many of which Sandfort either diverted
to the flames list or, according to some, deleted completely, in violation
of his own stated mandate as moderator. Now furious and fed up with the
infighting, Gilmore announced that he was through. He was giving the list
one week to find another home, and then pulling the plug. Sandfort would
continue to moderate till then. On February 20, the list officially died.

Sandfort now admits that he did delete some messages--including one that
was critical of his employer's product--but claims he acted only because
they contained libellous statements, since "republishing a libel is also a
libel." As for non-libellous messages, Sandfort, a lawyer, denies deleting
any intentionally, but hedges: Since he was doing all the filtering
manually, he says, "I'm sure I dropped some by accident."

Tim May, sticking to his anarchist principles, sees the whole issue as a
clear-cut battle between "free-speech absolutists" and "control freaks" who
never should have been given power over the list's content. He finds it
strange that a long-time Cypherpunk like Sandfort should suddenly be so
concerned about libel, given all the insults, unfounded accusations, and
anonymously pilfered corporate data that have appeared on the list over the
years with no complaints from anyone. But Sandfort insists, "Cypherpunk is
about privacy. It's not about free speech."

With the list temporarily homeless, physical meetings have continued in the
Bay Area, where a large number of Cypherpunks are based. The most recent,
held in a Stanford University auditorium, was the best ever, according to
May, with "a huge turnout." Three years after the group stopped being
front-page news, film crews from all over still show up at meetings
regularly. On the Net, the Cypherpunks' influence continues to grow, from
Web-browser warnings when you attempt to transmit unencrypted data, to the
increasing availability of unbreakable codes for widely used e-mail
programs like Eudora.

Former list maintainer Hugh Daniel and cofounder Eric Hughes are now
working on setting up a cypherpunks.org domain with its own computer to
host a new, independent list. (A Usenet newsgroup has been created to tide
the group over in the meantime.) It may turn out that what didn't quite
kill the Cypherpunks has made them stronger.


Cypherpunks newsgroup: alt.cypherpunks
Cypherpunks mailing list archives: http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks


*  distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission
*  <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,
*  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
*  more info: majordomo@is.in-berlin.de and "info nettime" in the msg body
*  URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/  contact: nettime-owner@is.in-berlin.de