From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Date: Fri, 27 May 94 12:22:59 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Unicorn suit
In-Reply-To: <9405261615.memo.72280@BIX.com>
Message-ID: <199405271922.MAA11294@netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Peace writes:

> I sometimes find it difficult to agree with Tim May and his anarchist
> tendencies, but you, Unicorn, have made me wish for exactly that.  How

Inasmuch as my name is taken in vain here, I will respond. I normally
don't argue for my "crypto anarchist" position here, preferring that
my posts on various subjects make the case instead.

All I'll say here on "anarchy" is that it is actually our normal state
of affairs. That is, we don't have "rulers" or "laws" dictating what
food to eat, what books to read, etc., and how to run our
relationships with others. Generally, that is. This is a "market
system," or an "anarchocapitalist" system, if you  prefer. Goods and
services and relationships are exchanged without centralized authority.

The issue of Black Unicorn/Uni vs. Tmp/Detweiler is a can of snakes.
As you know, I've been one of Detweiler's favorite targets, and yet
I've never been tempted to sue Detweiler. Too much hassle. But as
Black Unicorn notes, this is a choice we all have to make, and the
principles should not depend critically on one's personal desires or
dislikes. 

Although I skimmed most of the tmp postings, and chuckled at his
obviously sarcastic "apology" to Black Unicorn, there are many
aspects of the case that puzzle me still, and I lack the energy to try
to resolve all of the issues. 

How, for example, did Black Unicorn's true name get revealed to his
distant and less Net-literate furniture customers when even we have no
idea who he really is?

Black Unicorn has certainly made postings that I think are strongly in
line with the ideas I call "crypto anarchist." Does my saying this
constitute some kind of libel on Black Unicorn, should this posting
somehow make it back to the Black Forest or someplace like that?

How did all this propagate so quickly?

It seems to me that Black Unicorn's mere presence in so active a way
on the Cypherpunks list--idenitified in many magazines as being a
hotbed of cyberanarchy, black market discussions, underminer of
governments, etc.--is orders of magnitude more "damaging" to his
reputation amongst staid banking and furniture types than some
anonymous person named "tmp" who makes a claim that "Black Unicorn is
a dirty cryptoanarchist." (Yes, there were more messages than just
this simple claim. I'm simplifying for rhetorical purposes. See Black
Unicorn's long postings on this for more details.)

Peace goes on to say"

> can anyone be in favor of big government and crypto privacy.  This makes
> you sound like a hypocrite!  It seems that Detwiler, and his tentacles, 
> have performed a valued, if labored, service here.  Anonymity may have
> its uses, but it has abuses as well.  It is not the least bit clear 
> from his posting whether Unicorn supports anonymity or not.  Neither is
> it clear whether any of the rest of the punks really support anonymity.

What is it about the List that causes folks like Peace and Nalbandian
to ignore the posts they choose to ignore so as to insult us all?

The statement "Neither is it clear whether any of the rest of the
punks really support anonymity." is arrant nonsense.

I support anonymity, and so do lots of other folks. If either tmp or
Black Unicorn had really been anonymous (or pseudonymous, securely),
the lawsuit would've gone nowhere. First, had Black Unicorn really
been unlinkable to his True Name (and, like I said, I have no idea
what his True Name is, so I wonder who does know and how they found
out), then his reputation amongst the Furniture Cartel could not be
damaged. Or, had tmp's identity been similarly secure (via remailers,
servers in foreign countries, posting pools, etc.), the lawsuit
would've been pointless.

I have enjoyed the analyses of Black Unicorn over the past year, but
on this one I think his actions were misguided. He may or may not be a
"crypto anarchist," but his postings here clearly put him in our camp.
For him to now claim damage to his reputation because of being linked
to the majority (I think) view here seems farfetched.

And I think invoking the court system is a dangerous idea. Had this
matter gone to trial--which seems unlikely to me for several
reasons--then it is quite likely that records of the Cypherpunks list
(archives, for example) would have been subpoenaed by one side or the
other to support their case. (I know if I were Detweiler, that's
exactly what I'd do.)

So, Black Unicorn is of course free to do what he wishes. And I'll
admit that Detweiler can be obnoxious. But I cannot support the use of
the legal system in this way and hope this doesn't become the norm for
dealing with postings one doesn't like. I really don't want to see the
cops invading the Net and the courts deciding on what language is and
is not acceptable.

Especially not between two pseudonyms!


--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."