From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 93 13:21:58 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: anonymous postings and trust
Message-ID: <199311192121.AA15255@access.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
 
 
Consider this  ->
 
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 93 13:15:20 GMT
From: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway)
Subject: Useless anonymity
 
We are accustomed to seeing useless messages of various sorts on 
this and other electronic forums.  Messages that quote a long 
article only in order to add "Me too" at the end, messages of no 
interest to anyone but the individual they are directed to, 
content-free banter, ego-driven flame wars, and so on.  They 
still happen -- inexperienced people are always joining the net 
- -- but most people eventually learn to avoid making these faux 
pas.
 
 
<-
 
I agree.  Especially with regard to the "Me too" analogy.
 
- ->
 
Anonymity brings a new class of useless message, of which the 
following from Black Unicorn <unicorn@net.digex.access> is a 
recent example.  I quote it in its entirety:
 
>Having worked in Liechtenstein banks, I can assure you numbered
>accounts exist.
 
<-
 
You would have preferred that I quote the entire thread and then
add my comment?  Or is it the lack of accompanying detail in
the comment that you resent?
 
- ->
"Black Unicorn" is an obvious pseudonym, and I'm assuming that it 
is not one with an established reputation.  (For all I know, 
"Black Unicorn" might be as famous as the Legion of Doom, but for 
the sake of argument I'll assume that it isn't.)
<-
 
To begin, I have been active in cypherpunks list since about last
fall or winter (the exact date escapes me).  I left during the 
summer to return home (Liechtenstein) and returned to the states 
with new internet arrangements recently.  I don't claim to be 
reputed on the list, but I hope likewise that I am not notorious,
certainly not on the level of the "Legion of Doom.
Oh, just so everyone knows, I'm a he, not an it.
 
- ->
What is the use of an unsubstantiated assertion, from an 
unreputed[*] source, with no means of verification?  Having read 
Black Unicorn's bald asertion (sic), I am as ignorant as before 
of whether numbered accounts exist, in Liechtenstein or 
elsewhere.
<-
 
What use is an unsubstantiated assertion from a "reputed"
source?  It is likewise dependent upon your evaluation of 
credibility.
What I see here is a fundamental difference in the concept of
anon posting.  I hold a JD from Georgetown and a masters
in International Relations to boot.  Part of my marketability in 
the job market was the appearance of a conservative and level 
headed, status-quo loving, policy wise, right wing, go getter. 
Considering my employment and the nature of my (rather 
questionable) intellectual pursuits, (cypherpunks fitting the 
bill when one considers the political views of my employer and 
colleagues) it makes little sense to post as my self, but I 
prefer not to post as anXXXX@anon.penet.fi either.  My access 
account is a nice compromise.  Publicly at any rate.  In E-Mail, 
should you wish to so correspond, I would be happy to discuss 
more specifically, my employment or my experience.  To do so 
publicly is to shoot myself in the foot.  I might add that for 
other purposes, I use anon.penet.fi as well, but this is when I'm 
more interested in not having any accountability what so ever.  
Under these circumstances, I understand the reluctance to give 
any weight to a post, in fact I would argue that most of the 
time, those who post through anXXXX don't intend that their posts 
be given much weight.  Usually these are harassment posts or 
questions that posters don't want later attributed to them.  The 
purpose is to avoid a great deal of attention, other than by 
those in the know (with the question example at least).
 
You are perhaps ignorant of Liechtenstein's banking policy, 
most people are ignorant of Liechtenstein.  My intent was
to at least advise the poster that his/her research was not
yet in enough depth.  I really was, and am, not in a position to 
comment on banking policy in a public way in much detail.  Even 
commenting at all was within an ethical gray considering my 
former and current connection with the industry.  If what you're 
looking for in every post is proof, then you might as well ask 
for a digital signature from a large bank in Liechtenstein.  A 
digital signature from His Serene Highness Prince Hans-Adam II 
might come closer.  Even then it comes down to how well you trust 
the signature.
Strictly speaking, by your argument, anything I post is to be 
ignored.  Even posts with regard to weather (subject matter 
appropiateness non-withstanding).  Should you be more interested 
in detail, I would be happy to discuss what I can in person, by 
telephone, or in encrypted E-Mail, in descending order of the 
detail I would be willing to disclose.
 
- ->
 
New ideas or arguments can be useful regardless of their source.
 
<-
 
Harmonize this with your previous and later position that my post
is entirely without value.  Did I contribute nothing at all?
 
- ->
 
Likewise pointers to places where evidence may be obtained.  
Assertions by reputable sources may be taken on trust (I place 
far more weight on Perry Metzger's comments about numbered 
accounts than the Black Unicorn's).
 
<-
 
(1) providing specific past employment information about myself 
publicly would tend to place me in a compromising position.
(2) the amount of weight you assign any post will depend on your
experience with that posters previous record and accuracy.
If I used the pseudonym "Tom Jones" would you be happier?
It's still not my name is it?  Seems to me you are expressing
trust reservations that should be based on time gained
experience and not the superficial appearance of my name.  If 
your position is solely that you have never seen posts by me 
before, and therefore are unaware of my credibility, fine, but 
characterize your criticism in that frame, not by ranting on 
anonymous posts.  If my name had been Majud Rajakad, would a 
trust factor  (positive or negative) be implied?  What about 
Roosevelt Washington, or Fred Rosenberg?
 
- ->
The quoted message does none of these.  It is wholly useless, a 
waste of its author's time, and of ours.
<-
 
I enjoy posting to cypherpunks.  Hardly a waste of my time, I 
cannot speak for you.
 
- ->
[*] "unreputed": a word I just coined as an opposite to 
"reputable", meaning not "disreputable", i.e. having a bad 
reputation, but having no reputation at all.
<-
 
Gee, thanks.
 
- ->
 
- --                                  ____
Richard Kennaway                  __\_ /    School of Information 
Systems
Internet:  jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk      \  X/     University of East 
Anglia
uucp:  ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk    \/       Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.
 
<-
 
- -uni- (Dark)
 
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3
 
iQCVAgUBLO03axibHbaiMfO5AQFXmAQAlLvcJ+A5W5ZTH8lUjuJtInyqkeqKFtlj
zRFE7h+5h1KWcXbx7r5HzHKGZf2YQycR+l+Jn+WDSZ/nizAagMJuo+VLhvffi7+a
U5y7eg4cXzrW3pG0eCwR53Ivll6AxZGS56aAuJAiUQafuZOvHHa8loMTAjlT3P4O
siQtqR/6ruM=
=ksGs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----