1993-11-18 - the Lies of Cypherpunks

Header Data

From: “L. Detweiler” <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 0ec5addd27209aedd488e97103e901ecda02884b0c8a7ea3ab6f20474214f6f9
Message ID: <9311180509.AA27407@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-11-18 05:11:22 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 17 Nov 93 21:11:22 PST

Raw message

From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 93 21:11:22 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: the Lies of Cypherpunks
Message-ID: <9311180509.AA27407@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Could an eminent psychopunk explain to the several dozen sane people
left on the list:

Suppose that a real person signed someone else's imaginary identity for
a key in a key server, or for their own. Can someone explain to me why
this is not dishonest?

I guess the argument will be, the signor is only guaranteeing that some
key is associated with some email address. But that seems to me to
abuse the whole idea of trust in people. Has anyone asked PRZ what he
thinks of the practice of real people signing imaginary identities? or
key servers corrupted with phantom identities?





Thread