From: catalyst@netcom.com (Scott Collins)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 96d208173e46abb4b48f8c2c5c537beaf8d2e72b0132ac17bfcd85ece425b922
Message ID: <9310241011.AA28640@newton.apple.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-10-24 10:18:35 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 24 Oct 93 03:18:35 PDT
From: catalyst@netcom.com (Scott Collins)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 93 03:18:35 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: impersonation
Message-ID: <9310241011.AA28640@newton.apple.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I have recently read many arguments here which can be summarized:
"Cypherpunks technology makes impersonation easy, abuses unpunishable, and
communication untrustable."
This is not true.
There are two major thrusts to the tech discussed on this list.
a) anonymity, i.e., stripping communication of provable identity;
b) authentication, i.e., demonstrable proof of identity.
Impersonation based on the technology of the former, can have no more, and
likely much less, credibility than without. Neither does this technology
afford any additional mechanism by which a user bent on forgery can
illicitly claim another's identity. The technology of the latter category
(e.g., digital signatures) is, in fact, meant to be a significant obstacle
to this very act.
My identity is my own. An impersonation of me is an unpermitted use of my
private property: identity and reputation. It is as reprehensible as any
other theft, and -- at least to me -- is as deep an invasion of my privacy
as rape. I'm pretty damn pleased that cryptography has provided me a
weapon against it: a weapon advocated by cypherpunks; a weapon wielded
frequently on this list; a weapon we are all armed with, in the bodies of
PGP and PEM.
With the honey, often come the bees, and vice versa. The same people who
advocate a technology you fear, offer with it a solution far better than
unenforceable prohibition (even if we _had_ been the ones to let the genie
out of the bottle, we couldn't put it back in: dissemination of information
is non-ergodic). Anonymity software adds no affordances to the already
considerable array of techniques for deceiving people, simply more reliable
'track covering', and conversely, less credibility. Digital signatures, on
the other hand, provide a simple, tested, workable protection.
Scott Collins | "Few people realize what tremendous power there
| is in one of these things." -- Willy Wonka
......................|................................................
BUSINESS. voice:408.862.0540 fax:974.6094 collins@newton.apple.com
Apple Computer, Inc. 5 Infinite Loop, MS 305-2B Cupertino, CA 95014
.......................................................................
PERSONAL. voice/fax:408.257.1746 1024:669687 catalyst@netcom.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3
iQCVAgUBLMph2CmBKTQiZpaHAQEjZQP/ef4gBVSIy9+FFHkPyth9ktIjsqQu0W7S
ccY4BZGcJGOzA1QmqMKugHM1wQh8jNNtTLxmgSNcB5wUpAuGJaEFOhnKqRUGO4BB
oyR8AXXQ5uUDmBQ7krYaqk6xPLWe/K4ZPzcv/AVOZocxVlUGCLPg5z5+IXkyOb/2
FCwscFEBGcs=
=hAS8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Return to October 1993
Return to “rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray)”