From: Arthur Chandler <arthurc@crl.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 93 19:34:14 PST
To: Jim McCoy <mccoy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu>
Subject: Irony in Detweiler-Hunting
In-Reply-To: <199311170139.AA17951@tramp.cc.utexas.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.87.9311161935.A29976-0100000@crl.crl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




  I see irony here, all right, but maybe not quite the flavor you 
discern. Like other folks on this list besides (but including) Mr. 
Dedtweiler, I too have some concerns about anonymity versus responsibility 
in cyberspace. I'm convinced that there are legitimate uses of 
pseudonymous identities; but I don't think we can shut our eyes to the 
problems that such capabilities give rise to. It's an issue related to 
privacy and, in some applications, to encryption.
  Now for the irony:

  At least two people have said, or implied, "Well, if Detweiler had just 
used an anonymous identity in his posts, we wouldn't be researching his 
private life."
  I don't know what kind of QED others might put on such assertions. But 
here's one translation: "If Mister Detweiler had been a hypocrite, I 
wouldn't be in a position to dig into his personal life."
  I still dissent strongly to folks  playing cop or armchair 
psychological helper for Mr. Detweiler, then sugarcoating the 
mean-spiritedness with "Well, it's an object lesson" or "I just want his 
associates to know what he's doing."
  To adapt Gertrude Stein: "Ironic, if you find such things amusing; if 
not, not."


> > If the publication of this information is intended as a prelude to the 
> > RL persecution or harassment of Mr. Detweiler, I want to lodge a strong 
> > dissenting opinion.
> 
> Perhaps it was meant as an object lesson in the necessity of the dreaded
> "pseudospoofing" for Mr. Detweiller.  I find it rather amusing that many of
> the same people who were arguing against L. Detweiler's claims of a
> cryptoanarchic identity conspiracy are now objecting to the simple
> presentation of the same information about LD that LD wants to make
> available on all of you regardless of your wishes.
> 
> Quite ironic.
> 
> jim
>