From: "Robert J. Woodhead" <trebor@foretune.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 93 09:09:23 PDT
To: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Subject: Tim May, Detweiler and Me.
In-Reply-To: <9310261923.AA29868@netcom.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <9310271602.AA04945@dink.foretune.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Tim writes at length and with some eloquence regarding the
recent conflagration, and then quotes me replying to Mr. Detweiler.

>>Personally, I am getting a little tired of your ranting.  I agreed with
>>most of your position and got flamed for it.  Thanks a lot.  It's chillingly
>>obvious you've read "How to Win Friends and Influence People."
>>
>>If you are willing to do the research and provide solid, verifyable
>>evidence of such nastiness as you are convinced is happening, then
>>do it.  If you are willing to discuss the implications of dishonesty
>>in a universe of anonymity, then  that is a topic of interest.  If
>>all you are willing to do is rant about the boogieman under the
>>bed, then please do your mumbling somewhere else in cyberspace.
>>
>>I _still_ think the issue that concerns you is an important one.  I
>>also thi>nk you are doing a very good job of ensuring that people
>>don't give it critical thought. 

He then asks me to think about certain points, but after doing so, I
think he has misunderstood _my_ point.  My point in the above is
"Do not judge the message by the messenger."  Regardless of whether
or not his scenario is in play on the group (I don't think it is),
it is something to think about, and it is inevitable that people will
attempt to maliciously pseudospoof, and some will succeed.

Granted, Mr. Detweiler has been a royal twit.  But then, so have many
others on the list in reply to him.  Shame on the lot of you.

One of the central aspects of human society is negotiation and the
attempt to reach consensus.  In the past, while sitting around the
campfire or negotiating table, one could see the other parties to
the negotiation and be reasonably sure of their identity.

Sure, groups could collude to your detriment -- and sometimes did,
for it is a powerful technique (ask any poker player for examples),
but at least you knew that it took cooperation between individuals
and groups, and it was easier to track.  You at least had a scorecard
of the players, so to speak.

One of the effects of the digital revolution is that now, a single
person can be multiple people at the campfire with _much_ less
effort than before.  This reduces the cost of collusion, and makes
it more likely.

I believe this is an issue that needs to be addressed, if for no
other reason than to make people aware of the possibility that
it might be going on.  Hal Finney's recent posting on "True Names"
is a valuable contribution in that it proposes a way to deal
with the problem.

To quote Mr. D Vader, "Do not be so proud of this technological
terror you have created."  The cryptographic techniques being
developed today are immensely powerful.  Let us hope that we are
wise enough to learn how to use them well.  Let us take it as read
that there will be others who will foolishly use them for base ends,
and spend a little extra time to ensure that it isn't so easy.