From: Blanc Weber <blancw@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 09:41:26 PDT
To: tmp@netcom.com
Subject: RE: identity, privacy, & anonymity in cyberspace
Message-ID: <9404111642.AA22972@netmail2.microsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


A few more comments for tmp (hit delete if you don't want to know):

" isn't what we *really* want a more basic definition of what
is allowed and what is not? besides, under the cypherpunk vision,
operators would never censor a user for postings-- but is it the case that all
cypherpunks can say they have never tried to censor anyone by notes
to sysadmins,........?"

.  Isn't it true that what we really want is a way to defend
ourselves or find relief from a disruptive or discomfitting
effect?  If the capacity to do this (defending) is built into a
system, and everyone involved is aware of how it can be applied, then
it should be expected that it *will* be used; no one who has a means
for relief can be expected to restrain themselves from employing
it when they feel there is sufficient cause.  At some point it becomes 
a matter of self-preservation.

"the cypherpunk vision seems to split the world into two groups:
those people i trust (my friends) and everyone else (whom i
completely distrust withintense paranoia). this is a very xenophobic
and chauvinistic philosophy at heart."
. However, there is no mandate to subscribe to any particular attitude 
on the net, especially among a group of strangers who are not 
constrained to remain in contact.

" it seems to me to be the case that either `i know who you are' or i
don't.   what does it mean for me to `know who you are'?"
.  And why, one might ask oneself, should I care?

"the important goal is `defining what privacy really means' and
cypherpunks seem to take the position, `it means that nobody knows
anything about me'. our society simply cannot function under
this constraint."
.  But society is barely functioning anyway, under all of the present 
constraints.  It would function better if more of these were removed, 
and everyone's "true self" were allowed to manifest itself; this would 
also present greater opportunities to deal with underlying problems 
which otherwise cannot be resolved and only lead to unfriendliness & suspicion.

"if i wish to `interconnect', identity is necessary to minimize risk
to the people i `interconnect' with."
.  This is true, but it is also true that anyone who agrees to 
interconnect must realize that they are taking a risk, and that they 
cannot default on the responsibility they have assumed by participating.

Blanc