From: raph@netcom.com (Raph Levien)
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 94 15:11:47 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: remarkably bad media
In-Reply-To: <9412311739.AA09311@webster.imsi.com>
Message-ID: <199412312311.PAA10378@netcom14.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This is really the first line of this message. Ignore the line below
-- it was added by mistake by my autosigning scripts. Also, I was
completely thrilled by the Peter Lewis article. Now that I've thought
about it some more, the Microsoft hoax _was_ a problem with anonymity.
Please just disregard the rest of this post. Thanks. -- Raph

This is the first line of this message.

I agree with Perry that the article has some serious problems. Very
little of the actual stuff he talked about has anything to do with
anonymity at all, especially with anonymous remailers.

I was interviewed but not quoted. I mostly talked about the remailers,
their political situation (the fact that the average half-life of a
remailer seems to be about six months), and what my role is in trying
to make the whole mess useable. When I talked to him on the phone,
Peter seemed pretty clear about the distinction between spoofing
someone else's identity and being anonymous. However, I don't think
this distiction made it into print.

The sidebar was particularly problematical. It presented digital
signatures as a relief for the problems posed by anonymity. Well, of
course I think digital signatures are a wonderful idea (which is why
I've signed this post), but it certainly won't protect anybody against
being exposed to disturbing ideas that are disseminated anonymously.
Thus, I would consider the sidebar to be misleading.

I first saw the Microsoft spoof posted to rec.humor.funny. I don't
recall it being anonymous, and even if it was, it was clearly labled
as a joke. Any problems it caused are due to human gullibility. I
found it to be a great demonstration of how effective the AP
inverted-pyramid style is in conveying misinformation.

I can sympathize with Peter a bit, having just written an article for
Wired magazine (Feb '94, pp. 68-69). They used about half of the text
I originally wrote. My hard-headed skeptical review of stochastic
screening techniques was transformed into Wired's trademark gee-whiz
boosterism.

As the NYT article appeared, I'm just as happy that I wasn't quoted.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.1

iQCVAwUBLwXjPf4BfQiT0bDNAQHN6wP7BqDsLWaSxGu4wet8OaJ0duPMwChXpzAA
ryjQOTFsqkz5tWMGBcE5iz+4wAj1lZI2NcX2Y6QF+OPBBMFItmFoIyr1VLYCMUaT
nfaTmQBoLPOvgv9nNILuYNd2quBQzQR7yODqUGciBPQk281ao/hgoJjCxg79mbVd
SoMUGjNgcM4=
=ywCF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

PGP key available by fingering raph@netcom.com