Talk:Cypherpunk/Draft

Origin

I created this by copying the Wikipedia article and then editing rather extensively. I also borrowed some text from the FreeS/WAN docs which I wrote and which we have permission to reuse. Sandy Harris 12:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Needs some structure and more introduction

I'm not as familiar as you are with the list and hangers-on, but I have the feeling that some of this makes sense because I know some of the people and issues, and a new reader might not. While there are many Jon Callas stories, I still cherish the time he, in magic-user robes, shot a fireball over the head of an inattentive waitress at the Balticon science fiction and fantasy convention.

As you know, I prefer to minimize external links in the body of articles. Things like archives are legitimate external links for the external links subpage.

Isn't the main section a subset of privacy in general, and the cypherpunk view of it? It definitely could use some subsection headings for things such as financial privacy and anonymity. Perhaps I can start on privacy.--Howard C. Berkowitz 14:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have rewritten some and re-ordered fairly extensively, shifting the emphasis from the mailing list to the ideas and the activism, and adding sub-headings. Sandy Harris 04:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I've made many more changes. I think it may now be ready for approval. Sandy Harris 15:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Workgroups?

This is currently in Computers, Law and Sociology. Should it be in History? Since I think we have a limit of three, what could that replace? Sandy Harris 02:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd probably replace Law with History. You might want to mention that to User: Russell D. Jones, as his field is history of technology; there's CZ:History of Technology Subgroup. --Howard C. Berkowitz 03:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I did remove Law and add History. It actually has four groups, though, with Politics as 4th. Is that allowed? Does it need a further change? Sandy Harris 02:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My advice would be to use either History or Politics. In Internet terms, this is historical, but I personally would say Politics if I have to choose. This is convincing me even more that we are going to need > 3 subgroups fairly soon; the workgroup level is too arbitrary. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Now Sociology, Computers & Politics, with subgroups Security & History of technology Sandy Harris 00:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Toward approval

Some of the items below are really trivial, but I don't want to cause chaos with what I think is a copy edit and someone else does not.

• (Not a copy edit) The mention of libertarianism in the lede is tantalizing, but there's not much about cypherpunk-libertarian interactions. It may be that the more extreme anarcho-libertarians won't fit, because they won't conform to even technical standards.
• Crypto Anarchist Manifesto and the Cypherpunk Manifesto should be italic, to be consistent with Levy above.
• Link to privacy when it first comes up. We probably need definitions/articles on privacy, privacy vs. security, etc. The "Privacy" subsection would be a little less essay-flavored with some news or other examples. Unsaid in this section is any mention of what is called a universal identification card in other forums. (Silly aside, but I knew someone who, in the late seventies, was a technical standards representative from NSA to a number of other Federal agencies. He had so many specialized badges that he had built a Rolodex-like holder that he wore around his neck. He liked that he could look down at the back of the current badge to remember where he was.)
• Since this is cypherpunks specific, as oppose to societal, in the section on cybercash and anonymity, was counterterrorism funds tracking even an issue? I suspect drugs would fall under the general libertarian model, but, in reality, a LOT of terrorist hits came through such things as wire transfers (both bank and small-scale such as Western Union)
• anonymity, pseudonymity and reputation: I know what these are. You know what these are. A lot of people won't know the nuances among them; at least redlink for now. Also, you use "nym" without making it clear that it's a contraction of pseudonym.
• Crypto out of the closet -- well, maybe on a wide scale. I don't have the reference at hand, but Freud wrote about the typical interest in secrecy that came with male puberty. Basic crypto certainly was common enough. I think you'll find a few niche applications, mostly financial, before 1970, usually proprietary. DES is significant because it could bring moderately strong crypto (for the time) to the mass market.
• Again, avoid inline external references at the Approval stage.

Sandy, I'm really not trying to do WP-style citation needed, and my own experience confirms much of what is said, but a few more refs and links outside strict cypherpunk would avoid later suggestions of original research. Original synthesis, which is a Good Thing, would link Cypherpunk to non-Cypherpunk activities. This could be as minimal as looking at diffusion of privacy concerns among Cypherpunks, EFF, and then broader concerns such as ACLU. Since the Cypherpunk days, there's more hard evidence of surveillance. There are also tricky areas, such as privacy of call records (Smith v. Maryland). --Howard C. Berkowitz 14:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

A few other potentially useful links: financial intelligence and Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies. Were either discussed? They probably belong in Related articles.

Out of curiosity, was there any particular sentiment toward the IETF? The "write code" imperatives reminds me of IETF vs. ISO.

We're very close now. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say IETF rather than ISO approaches were just assumed rather than needing discussion. Gilmore worked for Sun, wrote RFC 951 defining bootp. People like Bellovin and Phil Karn were on the list and active in IETF. Sandy Harris 01:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made quite a few more changes. I think I'm done. Have a re-read, tell me what you think. Sandy Harris 22:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Toward Approval

Currently this article is nominated for approval by User:Howard C. Berkowitz as a single editor approval and is on track for locking this version of the article on June 19, 2010. If subsequent edits are made after that version, please rememebr to update the ToApprove template section. D. Matt Innis 12:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)