THE  CYPHERNOMICON: Cypherpunks FAQ and More, Version 0.666,
   1994-09-10, Copyright Timothy C. May. All rights reserved.
   See the detailed disclaimer. Use short sections under "fair
   use" provisions, with appropriate credit, but don't put your
   name on my words.

20.2.1. Copyright Timothy C. May. All rights reserved. For what it's
   worth.
20.2.2. Apologies in advance for the mix of styles (outline, bullet,
   text, essays), for fragments and incomplete sections. This
   FAQ is already much too long and detailed, and writing
   suitable connective material, introductions, summaries, etc.
   is not in the cards anytime soon. Go with the flow, use your
   text searching tools, and deal with it.
20.2.3. Substantive corrections welcome, quibbles less welcome, and
   ideological debate even less welcome. Corrections to outdated
   information, especially on pointers to information, will be
   most appreciated.

20.3.1. It may seem illogical for a Cypherpunk to assert some kind of
   copyright. Perhaps. But my main concern is the ease with
   which people can relabel documents as their own, sometimes
   after only adding a few words here and there.
20.3.2. Yes, I used the words of others in places, to make points
   better than I felt my own words would, to save time, and to
   give readers a different voice speaking on issues. I have
   credited quotes with a "[Joe Foobar, place, date]
   attribution, usually at the end of the quote. If a place is
   not listed, it is the Cypherpunks list itself. The author and
   date should be sufficient to (someday) retrieve the source
   text. By the way, I used quotes as they seemed appropriate,
   and make no claims that the quoted points are necessarily
   original to the author--who may have remembered them from
   somewhere else--or that the date listed is the origination
   date for the point. I have something like 80 megabytes of
   Cypherpunks posts, so I couldn't do an archaeological dig for
   the earliest mention of an idea.
20.3.3. People can quote this FAQ under the "fair use" provisions,
   e.g., a paragraph or two, with credits. Anything more than a
   few paragraphs constitutes copyright infringement, as I
   understand it.
20.3.4. Should I give up the maintaining of this FAQ and/or should
   others get involved, then the normal co-authorship and
   inheritance arrangements will be possible.
20.3.5. The Web. WWW and Mosaic offer amazing new opportunities for
   on-line documents. It is in fact likely that this FAQ will be
   available as a Web document. My concern, however, is that the
   integrity and authorship be maintained. Thus, splitting the
   document in a hundred or more little pieces, with no
   authorship attached, would not be cool. Also, I intend to
   maintain this document with my powerful outlining tools
   (Symantec's "MORE," on a Macintosh) and thus anyone who
   "freezes" the document and uses it as a base for links,
   pointers, etc., will be left behind as mods are made.

20.4.1. Some sections are in outline form
  - like this
  - with fragments of ideas and points
  - with incomplete sentences
  - and with lists of points that are obviously only starting
     points for more complete analyses
20.4.2. Other sections are written in more complete essay form, as
   reasonably self-contained analyses of some point or topic.
   Like this. Some of these essays were taken directly out of
   posts I did for the list, or for sci.crypt, and no
   attribution H (since I wrote the stuff...quotes from others
   are credited).
20.4.3. The styles may clash, but I just don't have the hundreds of
   hours to go through and "regularize" everything to a
   consistent style. The outline style allows additional points,
   wrinkles, rebuttals, and elaborations to be grafted on easily
   (if not always elegantly). I hope most readers can understand
   this and learn to deal with it.
20.4.4. Of  course, there are places where the points made are just
   too fragmentary, too outlinish, for people to make sense of.
   I've tried to clean these up as much as I can, but there will
   always be some places where an idea seemed clear to me at the
   time (maybe not) but which is not presented clearly to
   others. I'll keep trying to iron these kinks out in future
   versions.
20.4.5. Comment on style
  - In many cases I merged two or more chunks of ideas into one
     section, resulting in many cases in mismatching writing
     styles, tenses, etc. I apologize, but I just don't have the
     many dozens of hours it might take to go through and
     "regularize" things, to write more graceful transition
     paragraphs, etc. I felt it was more important to get the
     ideas and idea fragments out than to polish the writing.
     (Essays written from scratch, and in order, are generally
     more graceful than are concatenations of ideas, facts,
     pointers, and the like.)
  - Readers should also not assume that a "fleshed-out"
     section, made up of relatively complete paragraphs, is any
     more important than a section that is still mostly made up
     of short one-liners.
  - References to Crypto Journals, Books. Nearly every section
     in this document _could have_ one or more references to
     articles and papers in the Crypto Proceedings, in
     Schneier's book, or whatever. Sorry, but I can't do this.
     Maybe someday--when true hypertext arrives and is readily
     usable (don't send me e-mail about HTML, or Xanadu, etc.)
     this kind of cross-referencing will be done. Footnotes
     would work today, but are distracting in on-line documents.
     And too much work, given that this is not meant to be a
     scholarly thesis.
  - I also have resisted the impulse to included quotes or
     sections from other FAQs, notably the sci.crypt and rsadsi
     FAQs. No point in copying their stuff, even with
     appropriate credit. Readers should already have these docs,
     of course.
20.4.6. quibbling
  - Any time you say something to 500-700 people, expect to
     have a bunch of quibbles. People will take issue with
     phrasings, with choices of definitions, with facts, etc.
     Correctness is important, but sometimes the quibbling sets
     off a chain reaction of corrections, countercorrections,
     rebuttals, and "I would have put it differently"s. It's all
     a bit overwhelming at times. My hope for this FAQ is that
     serious errors are (of course) corrected, but that the List
     not get bogged down in endless quibbling about such minor
     issues as style and phrasing.

20.5.1. This FAQ is very long, which makes finding specific questions
   problematic. Such is life--shorter FAQ are of course easier
   to navigate, but may not address important issues.
20.5.2. A full version of this FAQ is available, as well as chapter-
   by-chapter versions (to reduce the downloading efforts for
   some people). Search tools within text editors are one way to
   find topics. Future versions of this FAQ may be paginated and
   then indexed (but maybe not).
20.5.3. I advise using search tools in editors and word processors to
   find sections of interest. This is likely faster anyway than
   consulting an index generated by me (which I haven't
   generated, and probably never will).

20.6.1. This FAQ, or whatever one calls it, is more than just a
   simple listing of frequently asked questions and the lowest-
   common-denominator answers. This should be clear just by the
   size alone. I make no apologies for writing the document I
   wanted to write. Others are free to write the FAQ they would
   prefer to read. You're getting what you paid for.
20.6.2. My views are rather strong in some areas. I've tried to
   present some dissenting arguments in cases where I think
   Cypherpunks are really somewhat divided, such as in remailer
   strategies and the like. In cases where I think there's no
   credible dissent, such as in the wisdom of Clipper, I've made
   no attempt to be fair. My libertarian, even anarchist, views
   surely come through. Either deal with it, or don't read the
   document. I have to be honest about this.

20.7.1. This detailed disclaimer is probably not good in most courts
   in the U.S., contracts having been thrown out if favor of
   nominalism, but here it is anyway. At least nobody can claim
   they were misled into thinking I was giving them warranteed,
   guaranteed advice.
20.7.2. Timothy C. May hereby disclaims all warranties relating to
   this document, whether express or implied, including without
   limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or
   fitness for a particular purpose. Tim May will not be liable
   for any special, incidental, consequential, indirect or
   similar damages due to loss of business, indictment for any
   crime, imprisonment, torture, or any other reason, even if
   Tim May or an agent of his has been advised of the
   possibility of such damages.  In no event shall Tim May be
   liable for any damages, regardless of the form of the claim.
   The person reading or using the document bears all risk as to
   the quality and suitability of the document. Legality of
   reading or possessing this document in a jurisdiction is not
   the responsibility of Tim May.
20.7.3. The points expressed may or may not represent the views of
   Tim May, and certainly may not represent the views of other
   Cypherpunks. Certain ideas are explored which, if
   implemented, would be illegal to various extents in most
   countries in the world. Think of these explorations of ideas
   as just that.

20.8. I've decided to release this before the RSA patents run out...