From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 14:55:01 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Pseudonyms and Reputa
In-Reply-To: <9404112105042054@wov.com>
Message-ID: <199404112154.AA06418@access3.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> 
> From: dork39@wov.com
>  Hf> This is true, but the main purpose of this technology is to prevent
>  Hf> users from creating large numbers of pseudonymous accounts.  No
>  Hf> technology can stop people from cooperating in an on-line forum, and
>  Hf> the use of friends' or family members' accounts is also very hard to
>  Hf> prevent.  So collusion at some limited level will always be possible.
>  Hf> But at least it should be possible to prevent the massive use of nyms.
> 
> Hang on a mo.  I'm new here and so I don't know how this
> started.  If you would be so kind, what is the "problem" here
> about "massive use of nyms?"  Seems to me that is a kind of
> self-limiting bookkeeping job for the user of nyms: like which
> ones are for what.  Have you guys ever tried to DO a system of
> nyms for any important purpose?  It is NOT a whole lot of fun:
> much more resembling hard work.
> 
> You see I think there are plenty of reasons that reasonable
> people would agree are valid for some people to use nyms, even
> large numbers of nyms.
> 
> For example I know a lawyer who uses a lot of nyms (and anon PGP
> keys) to create "clusters" of people involved with individual
> legal cases. It strikes me as a very well organized system for a
> good purpose.  The people involved in a given case can all talk
> to each other about it, and outsiders or people in other cases
> don't get to peek in, or even know what the group is about or
> who's in it without going to a LOT of trouble.

In a closed system such as the one you describe, the problems of
free and easy access to nyms is not a concern.  My read is that
the only time this is in a problem in the way we are approach it 
is in a less private forum.  Mr. Sternlight will be the first to
mention that you need not participate in such a forum.  I will be
the first to advise you actively not to.  (See below)

> Since Phil is going to release the story to the Wall St. Journal
> anyway, I guess I can mention that the encryption method of
> CHOICE for the valiant fighters against SLORC in Burma (who are
> the worst kind of bad guys by any measure)

Your sentence leaves ambiguous what subject the "worst kind of bad
guys" clause modifies.  Interestingly enough it seems to me that
for this argument to have any merit in the way you structure it, one
must make a value judgement on who is a valiant guy and who is a bad guy.  I 
think you will find that the more sophisticated of the theorists here will argue 
that strong encryption and anonymous channels of communication should be 
available to everyone regardless of what you, I, they or the state 
department may think of their philosophy, motives or character.

> is PGP and they are,
> of course, ALL using "nyms" and sterilized anon keys and so on.
> They are by FAR the heaviest PGP users in this part of the
> world.  Full time trainers and the works.  But you can surely
> see how they might not want to tell the thugs where to come to
> get them and their families for a course in extended torture.

While the story has merit for a demonstration of legitimate USE of
PGP, to hinge the support of that fact to the "goodness" or "badness"
of the user is to miss the point.

See above Re: your use of the word "thugs."

> Now you guys with "ID" fetishes are seeing this as a PROBLEM?
> 
> Excuse me very much, but I think I need to see a LOT of
> explaining about that.

I think you will find again that the more sophisticated theorists
here who oppose the wide availability of anonymous channels will
transcend this argument, which is again based on a value 
judgement of the user's motives.

> Note this principle: people with a NEED for anonymity are NOT
> going to want to get permission from, or even talk to, some
> Central Authority first.  There is no way that you or anyone
> else is going to be able to decide if any use of anonymity is
> "legitimate" or not.

I guess you just support my point here.  Note that your use of
"you or anyone else" includes YOU (Dork).  It follows that
you have just eradicated your entire argument, which was based
on the decision you (Dork) had made on the legitimacy of anonymous
communication.

> If there are "problems" with that, it seems to me that your
> efforts are best directed into figuring out how you can live
> with it, and not about how you can "control" or "prevent" it.

Might makes right?  The ability to create unlimited anonymous
accounts overrides the basic question of order?

Even if your right, I think it is you who needs to consider this
line of argument, and not us.

> (Hey I am ever so sorry to hear how some people used nyms to
> cheat in a game.  But somehow my reaction was "so what?" and to
> bang my [Enter] key right smartly.

This is your mistake.  You'll find, I think, that cypherpunks look to
the future, and for ways to solve problems rather than:
"...bang[ing] [their] [Enter] key[s] right smartly."

> There are people in the
> world without the time or inclination to play games.  Perhaps
> sometime in the next century I might personally get enough slack
> and curiosity to take a look at some computer game myself--who
> knows?  But, you know, even if I do, I kind of think I will have
> a real hard time working up a lot of anxiety about possible
> cheating.)

Which is again, your mistake.  The application of said technology tends
to begin from "games."  Magic money is a crude "game" of sorts with a
fictitious bank, and fictitious money.  But it illuminates the problems
of digital cash in an important way.

> In the meanwhile not only do I support nyms and other anonymity,
> but I intend to use plenty of them, and will resist any attempts
> to preclude that in every way I can.

Reckless abandon is unwise, Dork.  (As was, I might add, your nym selection.
Leaves you way to open.  :)  )

> GENERAL ADVICE TO ALL ONLOOKERS:  Since it looks like
> self-appointed "ID police" are working hard to prevent you from
> using anonymity, I suggest that if you ever think that you might
> ever have a NEED for anonymity at any time in the future, that
> you take a little time off and set up a supply for yourself of
> nyms and so on and embed them in the system before these guys
> get their prevention systems in place.  Do that NOW, because
> this kind of thinking is a THREAT to you.


Try instead:

GENERAL ADVICE TO ALL ONLOOKERS:  Since it looks like
self-appointed ["Nym Police"] are working hard to prevent you from
[developing non-anonymous systems], I suggest that if you ever think
that you might ever have a NEED for [a non anonymous system] at any
time in the future, that you take a little time off and set up a 
[non-anonymous system] and so on and embed [it] before these guys
get their [anonymous] systems in place.  Do that NOW, because this
kind of thinking is a THREAT to you.


Just what is it that makes your "'ID police'" any more self-righteous
than you?

> [It just occurs to me that this very message has a "nym" on it.

Wow, you are quick!

> OK here is the reason: mail handling.  No offense to a group
> like this, but it really qualifies as "recreational" in my
> priorities, WAY after personal mail some of which might be very
> urgent, business mail, some of which might be urgent, etc.

We won't be hearing from you more often?  Shame.

> But
> one inherent weakness of a "mailing list" like this is that if I
> subscribed under my regular account, 50 messages a day from this
> group would be all mixed in with my other mail.

Sounds like a personal failure in the sorting process to me.

> Kind of like a
> "mandatory newsgroup."

You could always ask to be removed from the list... please?

> I'm sorry, but that is a GIGANTIC pain
> in the ass and might even cause me to overlook something
> important in my mail.  So, yes, for any such thing as these
> mailing lists, I will set up a "nym" or "alias" or whatever you
> want to call it, so I can handle that mail *separately*.  I also
> have several separate accounts for different business reasons.
> Is this OK with you, ID freaks?  May I have your permission to
> continue to do that?]
> 

If you're so sure nyms are ok, why are you explaining yourself to us?


Some general thoughts, Dork:

Your blind application of value based arguments really takes from the
force of persuasion.  I suggest you listen more, talk less, and finish
your undergraduate education.  Many of the posters here who seem to have
less experience and "important mail" than you still seem to handle
themselves in a much more mature way.  It is clear that you are not very
open to suggestion in general, as a result I suggest you stop wasting
your important time and precious mail space, as well as ours and find
something more selfish than a group discussion to participate in.  I find
that yelling at a wall is very satisfying when I don't want to be persuaded.
You might try it.  


-uni- (Dark)