From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 00:17:42 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: pseudospoofed out
Message-ID: <9310200713.AA28851@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Cypherpunks, I use the internet for a lot of serious activities, and it
deeply troubles me to think that I have been vicitimized by
pseudospoofers in areas outside of merely the cypherpunks list such as
in the numerous FAQs I edit (a very time consuming endeavor) or in my
other favorite mailing lists. I feel like my blood has been drained by
parasites that suck my prose and passions. Since there is absolutely no
support for any `True Names' here whatsoever, I volunteer to drop the
subject. And of course I am just another blip on this list, so my ideas
for its improvement mean nothing, and I will not *ever* make a
proposition again here regarding the subject. however,

A PERSONAL REQUEST

I humbly request that ANYONE SENDING ME PERSONAL MAIL have the decency
to do so under their `True Name' or `obviously anonymously' under the
same identity. Do not deceive me for perverted sport. Do not try to
build up trust merely so that you can betray it. Do not manipulate me
simply because you have the capability or because I am a basically
trusting person. This sentiment is equivalent to something like `if a
woman doesn't carry a gun then it's OK to rape her' and it is one of
the most alarming aspects of what I have seen promoted here and in the
general `hacker' community. `nothing is wrong if you can get away with
it.' I believe that there is no such thing as a `consequentless
action'. Please, do not drag *me* into the gutter because you like to wallow there.

If anyone has deceived me in manipulating me with multiple pseudonyms
in my personal email, please inform me *now*. I believe this is the
absolute least that *anyone* could ask on the internet.

Another point to make is that Usenet & current mailing lists are far
from the future models. I fundamentally believe that `true name'
systems are entirely socially desirable and can be erected without
invading privacy. Anyone who claims that `true names' and `privacy' are
fundamentally incompatible is simply mistaken. Does `absolute privacy'
mean that no one *ever* knows who *anyone* is?

It seems to me the ability to differentiate identities or reject their
input based on `true names' is a basic right of the listener. You do
not have a right to bludgeon me with identical opinions from an
unrepresentative arsenal of imaginary identities. I suspect some of the
people advocating `absolute privacy' are themselves currently using
powerful tools to detect pseudospoofing others do not possess. Is that
the cypherpunk Utopian ideal? A place where you can manipulate people
without them knowing it? let others drown in mud while you trample atop their backs?

Also, please do not deceive the press. T.C. May has recently
satirically suggested that some of the Wired pictures are of hired
actors. I don't find this funny. If the `cypherpunks' are really
something other than that which they claim, it will eventually and
inevitably come back to haunt the `movement,' whatever it is
(algorithms or ideology? I no longer care). History and society is far
more shrewd than that. If pseudospoofing is really the #1 cypherpunk
agenda, please make that clear. `We want to fool everyone with
brainwashing techniques so they are at the mercy of our whim.'

One of my attractions to cyberspace was the promise of making online
friends, and I have made many over many months. But the idea that some
psychopaths are sending me email just to leech my strong emotions and
play with my passions, like a cat does a captured mouse, perhaps even
with the support of a large and complex software `arsenal' designed
specifically to promote camouflage and manipulation, perhaps on a very
widespread scale involving multiple lists, I find reprehensible and
inherently evil. Please, choose another lab rat victim.

My whole `cyberspatial reality' has been cast into doubt. Who's real?
Who's fake? I used to really look forward to reading and responding to
my mail, but now I approach it with dread, horror, and nausea. I don't
even know if who I am talking to on the phone is who they say they are
anymore, or if I really have any true cyberspatial friendships, because
of all the pseudospoofing in my mailbox. There are some among you who
say `welcome to the real world'. Are you people saying that man's
natural state is confusion, desperation, and paranoia?

I am not opposed to `pseudonymity' and multiple reputations of couse.
But the strong sentiments on this list that I should be kept *guessing*
I find abhorrent. What is most disturbing is the possibility of a
single entity attempting to stick someone's psyche in a vice by
systematic and concerted assaults from multiple supposedly `unique'
identities in private email. This is like dealing with a tentacled
octopus-monster. What could be more depraved? This is nothing but
vicious interrogation and brainwashing.

I'm simply in favor of truth in advertising, and I think this list has
been misrepresented as a `forum' when it's nothing but a hotbed of
pseudospoofing, possibly even aided by automatic software tools.
Someone tell me, how long have I been arguing with AI programs anyway?
Trully, I never would have subscribed if I had realized the `practice'
of pseudospoofing was epidemic. I mean, I suspected there were isolated
cases, but now it appears a large part of traffic is manufactured
flames and froth. Does anyone have any idea how much time has been
wasted wading or even arguing with opinions that were nothing but
mirages? I'm deeply disillusioned. But of course, who cares? Certainly
not the leadership or the followers.

I'm not sure that some of the `identities' I've been dealing with over
the past few months really have any basic morality. I suspect there are
some demagogues that tout `privacy' while really subtly and insideously
promoting dishonesty, sociopathism, treachery, and barbarianism.

An example: I am on another mailing list where I posted a long article
as a `gift' to the subscribers. I got some favorable comments, except
from the moderator who said that `people are shocked at what you did.'
I asked him. What people? What did they say? He backed down. But
imagine that someone slandered me with a worthless pseudonym? and, in
fact, even if they mailed *me* would I be able to tell that they didn't
care about the reputation of that pseudonym? It seems to me that there
is a basic idea of reputation and postings. To a degree, if you haven't
earned a reputation in some subject, you should be disqualified from
pontificating on it, irrelevant of your arsenal of pseudonyms. Filters
based on reputations may help make this a reality. (I would personally
like to ban my mailbox of all opinionated pseudonyms who have not read
more than 2 of my posts.)

I remember E.H. once announcing to the list that J. Markoff had
unsubscribed. Who's really in favor of privacy? Is everybody here
really interested in `privacy' as an `offensive weapon'? `Privacy' as a
way of evading taxes? `privacy' as a way of manipulating or betraying
the gullible and trusting for perverted pleasure? `privacy' as
destroying social order and promoting anarchy? Really, nevermind.
please, don't send me any more blistering flames. These are rhetorical
questions. In fact, this is a rhetorical essay.