1993-10-21 - Re: Something Silly, Something Serious

Header Data

From: jamie@netcom.com (Jamie Dinkelacker)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: d9509db3f93eddc89156bdad829d6533878a0ba6c7f9abea715a6db9038dc140
Message ID: <9310210643.AA27104@netcom.netcom.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-10-21 06:47:55 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 23:47:55 PDT

Raw message

From: jamie@netcom.com (Jamie Dinkelacker)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 23:47:55 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Something Silly, Something Serious
Message-ID: <9310210643.AA27104@netcom.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Tim May writes (and then Jamie takes a bend toward CypherRapture):

>Seriously, I understand L. Dettweiler has asked to be unsubscribed.
>For the record, I did not send him any e-mail these past several
>weeks, either under my normal name or under any other names. I rarely
>pseudonyms, and have never--that I recall right now--ever used them in
>2-way communication. And never for the purposed Dettweiller/Boxx alleged.
>But the cake was taken when he claimed I had invented the nym "Jamie
>Dinkelacker," whom many of you know personally, to slant arguments!
>Done humorously, as several of us have done recently, such a claim
>would be funny (no offense meant, Jamie). But LD showed no awareness
>of the absurdity of his claim.                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Tim's got a point. Why would Tim create the nym Jamie Dinkelacker? With so
many names to pick from, why pick one that is already in use and is fairly
visible in other networks (e.g., extropians, nano)? Perhaps LD didn't check
them, but others on the list are aware. Isn't it interesting that when a
writer doesn't know that two persons are different individuals, it's easy
to presume that when they agree in print or simply discuss similar topics,
that this implies nym-hood? Fascinating: This isn't a surface event.

The issue here is a root failing of LD's cognizance and scope to simply
check things out. Readers in the Bay Area or LA may have seen stuff Jamie
Dinkelacker has written in _Microtimes_, or in the _Foresight Update_, or
if you read the academic communication and mass media literature, there as
well. Plus, I'm a fairly voluble fellow speaking at conferences, trade
shows, some local discussion groups and the like. No, Jamie isn't an AI,
nor does he play one on the net. (Maybe someday...)  I've not used net nym.

What struck me about LD's vacuous pleas and S.Boxx's vapid rants was the
essential disturbed and juvenile nature they projected, hoping to ensure a
cause of CypherRapture (following CryptoAnarchy, natch) warranting true
names without ever any spoofing or deception. I have made a standing offer
to take S.Boxx to lunch (provided s/he eats with a fork and isn't already
out to lunch).

But spoofing and deception are not the same: more importantly, neither is
an emergent element of pseudonymity, anonymous remailers, or cypherjocks. I
found Blacknet to be entertaining. It seemed natural this has been going on
for years.  As far as deception, it's a matter of degree. It's common in
nature, sports, business, ... . I'm not advocating it -- but I accept it as
a fact of living in modern times.

This has been a good experience for me, and has raised many issues in the
big Venn of CryptoAnarchy: who owns their name, for how long, does it
matter? ... Who can tell the difference? Which John Smith is that?

... Tim continues ...
>Cypherpunks write code. Cyperpunks write essays. Cypherpunks make puns
>and jokes and even spoofs. Cypherpunks have fun.

I don't know if there is a Cypherpunk's cause. I doubt there's a movement,
but that's separate from my holding a belief that crypto and nyms and
digital cash and privacy and emergent social structures are crucial to a
preferable form of human survival.

With the net, we have a wonderous tool and opportunity. But the world isn't
a safe place. Every time I put a finger or toe into the lovely pacific
ocean I'm keenly aware of quickly entering the food chain at a much lower
point. These are times of challenge, to develop new tools and fresh
perspectives. But many elements of human nature remain the same.

I thank the Cypherpunks for writing code. I don't (anymore): I write words,
make videos and build organizations. We do need the code. We also need to
push at the edges of our understanding of social dynamics. And S.Boxx
clearly illustrated that puerile visciousness, wounded animal frenzy, and
pathetic behavior are also here in this new world. One of the brave ones,
s/he isn't. And Cypherpunks' creations even protect the likes of S.Boxx.
Reminiscent of Voltaire, yes?

Thanks for the bandwidth. If anyone would like to continue this, perhaps
moving it to the Extropians list would be reasonable.

James Dinkelacker (True name)
Jamie Dinkelacker   Palo Alto CA  (almost a true name)
Jamie@netcom.com    415.941.4782