1993-10-07 - Re: Standard Headers for Anonymous Remailers

Header Data

From: cman@IO.COM (Douglas Barnes)
To: pierre@shell.portal.com (Pierre Uszynski)
Message Hash: 9ee7c42a4a60c1deec5785650c09bbcf6d077f71bb4d266696c6497bad9c5429
Message ID: <9310072218.AA01673@illuminati.IO.COM>
Reply To: <9310072018.AA14402@jobe.shell.portal.com.shell.portal.com>
UTC Datetime: 1993-10-07 22:25:35 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 7 Oct 93 15:25:35 PDT

Raw message

From: cman@IO.COM (Douglas Barnes)
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 93 15:25:35 PDT
To: pierre@shell.portal.com (Pierre Uszynski)
Subject: Re: Standard Headers for Anonymous Remailers
In-Reply-To: <9310072018.AA14402@jobe.shell.portal.com.shell.portal.com>
Message-ID: <9310072218.AA01673@illuminati.IO.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Owen wrote:
> > Perhaps a *zoning* concept is needed, in such that transactions would
> > have qualifying conditions - or in such that *zones* exist as data-space
> > with authentication qualifications for *entry* or transaction.
> 

Pierre wrote:
> Who qualifies whom, based on what info, and to eliminate whom?
> 

I don't think that Owen (and certainly not any party to the argument
at io.com) is suggesting a high-handed Big Brother approach to qualifying
transactions. At least I hope not...

However, I think that as the means of defining data spaces (whether in
Usenet space, mailing list space, or IRC space) become more sophisticated
and also more accessible, that the people who establish these spaces
will want to also establish authentication qualifications. And whether
this will be a Good Thing or a Bad Thing depends on whether it's based
on reputation or on knee-jerk anti-anonymity bigotry.

Individuals or groups that wish to create a data space, or who currently 
conduct transactions in a data space, *should* have the right to establish 
rules for entry and transaction ranging from "anything goes" to "established 
members of the foo-ology research community using digital signatures." I
think that the best remedy for the tyranny and stagnation that can arise from 
this is to keep a very low barrier to entry for the creation of new data spaces.

Despite this, I think that discrimination solely on the basis on anonymity
is *dead wrong* and is on equivalent moral ground with discrimination on
the basis of skin color, religion or unnatural fondness for aquatic mammals.
I think it is much more useful to put the new anonymous entity on the same
ground as, say, a first semester college freshman, and allow that entity
meaningful channels for acquiring reputation, up to and including becoming
an "established member of the foo-ology research community."

Doug Barnes
Founder of foo-ology and the 'foo' mailing list
To subscribe, send e-mail to: foo-request@indial1.io.com

-- 
----------------                                             /\ 
Douglas Barnes            cman@illuminati.io.com            /  \ 
Chief Wizard         (512) 448-8950 (d), 447-7866 (v)      / () \
Illuminati Online          metaverse.io.com 7777          /______\




Thread