From: fc@all.net (Dr. Frederick B. Cohen)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 19:58:37 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Crypto++, Cpunk Icons, list noise
In-Reply-To: <199511061050.CAA17098@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Message-ID: <9511061141.AA16901@all.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


Anonymous wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Nov 1995 don@cs.byu.edu wrote:
> 
> > An anonymous complainer writes:
> > 
> > >Well, Perry, my opinion is that there is far too much noise on this list 
> > >as it is.  I have already seen my words drowned out by bellyaching over 
> > >next to nothing.
> > 
> > POT-KETTLE-BLACK.
> > 
> > Also, since nothing you've written (in your commentary, as opposed to
> > anonymous announcements or releases that most people use anonymity for
> > here) indicates that you're using anonymity for any particular reason,
> 
> Hmmm, I'm not sure that anyone has an inherent right to question WHY a
> person seeks moments of anonymity or privacy.  I don't believe that
> anyone should be placed on the defensive, for *choosing* to maintain
> some semblance of a personal life, or wishing to maintain some
> illusions that they might still have some shred of personal privacy
> left.  Hopefully, we can still leave a man with his dignity.

In the United States, we have the right to express whatever view we
wish, so long as it doesn't endanger others (e.g., insight to riot,
scream "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, etc.). 
Everyone has an inherent right to question why a person seeks moments of
anonymity or privacy. 

As far as people being placed on the defensive, if you want to be
defensive it's your choice.  In terms of understanding what you say,
without understanding the WHY, it's harder to understand and evaluate
the WHAT.

When people use the cover of anonymity to make attempts at character
assasination, they WHY certainly seems a central issue.  Is it that the
people who post such attacks are cowards? Do they have ulterior motives?
Or are they simply upset about something else in their life and taking
it out on others.  Are they using anonymity to prevent responsibility or
association? Are they afraid of retribution?  Without understanding the
motive, their postings cannot be truly understood.

> I should not have to defend my right to present my ideas as I believe
> are appropriate to the circumstances.  My choice to present the idea,
> that an entire economic sector needs to carefully reevaluate their
> strategic choices, and their discovered hidden security attitudes -- will 
> stand or fall strictly on its merits.  The debate is not advanced in any 
> way by attaching a reputation to the question.

You don't have to defend anything, but the debate is certainly advanced
by attaching reputation.  If you were an investment banker and making
major investment decisions on a daily basis without understanding the
issue, it would being a very different understanding to our reading than
if you were a high school student.  The reason is that content without
context is devoid of meaning.  The more context we have, the more
meaning we can attributed to your content. 

> Like any other person, I have my skeletons, and I have my regrets.  I 
> certainly have unfinished, unresolved, issues that I need to tend to.  In 
> that sense, I am no different than any other man.  I also realize that 
> ultimately, I'll have to come forward from behind the veil of secrecy 
> which is provided to me.  

Why wait? We have a special on truth available only today.  Tell us who
you are and we will forgive all past sins (mortal sins not included,
void where prohibited).

> This I will do, after I have reconciled my own security considerations.

Ah - probably void there.

> Please allow me the boundary and dignity to choose when, where, and in 
> what form I choose to reveal myself.  That inherent right, should be
> extended to any man, and no man should be called to account for his 
> desire to maintain his personal privacy, no matter how arbitrary his
> reasons.

Your privacy is yours, but the content of your messages continues to be
degraded by the lack of adequate context for their interpretation.

> Especially when he comes forward to challenge Goliath.

David had only a slingshot.  An anonymous remailer would have reduced
his risks too.

...

-- 
-> See: Info-Sec Heaven at URL http://all.net
Management Analytics - 216-686-0090 - PO Box 1480, Hudson, OH 44236