From: anonymous@wmono.remailer (Anonymous)
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 22:36:58 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: [FRED] Anonymity and Integrity
Message-ID: <199511021410.IAA06974@ valhalla.phoenix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


[note: i'm not the original 'anonymous user' in this thread]

>If the message was not of any particular import to anyone, integrity
>would not be a very big issue, but suppose you took quotes out of
>context and cleverly tried to construct a picture of the other person
>as not being reputable.  People who read the message might believe that
>what you said was true, or at least had a grain of truth to it.  That
>sort of message lacks integrity, and the reason it lacks integrity is
>because it has anonymity, not just because it's false and misleading.

I, for one, pay very little attention to the author of any
given message on this list, and messages stand on their own
merit. I take everything I read (here and elsewhere) with
a grain of salt, and pay close attention to factual references
if they are supplied to I can do my own investigating and
draw my own conclusions, if the topic piques my interest.

An anonymous posting has exactly the same 'integrity quotient'
as any first-time poster; the reader has no historical perspective
on the author, and the message should be  accepted or discarded
on its own merits, not by a blind "he's usually clueful" or
"who the heck is this?" attitude.

[erm.. I'm not attacking anyone here, just spewing some thoughts
 I haven't bothered to express yet..]

(...)

>Example: I have two (N) pseudonyms that put forth different points of
>view specifically directed to create different kinds of credence to
>different audiences.  If the audiences knew that both (several) of the
>pseudonyms were in fact the same person, they would have very different
>beliefs about the individual given the combined picture than they might
>get from any one of the pictures.

[Obligatory _Ender's Game_ reference grudgingly suppressed]

This happens in 'real life' all the time. I hide the details
of my geeky job from my Friday-night friends, and don't bring
up my recreational pharmaceutical use with my business associates.
Either group would have different feelings about me if they
had a 'combined picture' of my lifestyle. 

>It's not only the True Name that's at issue.  It's the association of a

Personally, I find the quest for employment of any True Name scheme
hogwash, simply because of the multifaceted nature of human existence
(see above), where pseudonimity (virtual or social) is a part of 
everyday life.

True Names are logically almost impossible anyway. What base criteria
would a government, company, or other organization use to assign
and make use of a True Name? Driver's license? (fake) .. DNA fingerprint?
(cloning) .. any attempt to pin /me/ down to a single facet of 
existence is doomed to failure, given how adept the bad guys are
at keeping ahead of the good guys.

>set of messages and historical information with a source.  For example,
>if we knew you were a KGB agent working in the disinformation and
>economic espionage branches, we might evaluate your postings differently
>than if we knew you were a high-school student from Deluth whose father
>taught her a lot about cryptography when she was young.

We all have hidden agendas; personally, until I reach godlike status
(btw, anyone have any spare eye of newt laying around?) I'll have
to be content with judging most things I read with a healthy dose 
of cynicism, and squeeze what 'truth' I can out of it. I've been 
surprised too many times by hidden goals and 'double agents' to put
much stock in /anything/ sent down my pipe.

There's also an argument that the most prolific pseudonyms and 'real'
account-holders have Something They Want Us To Believe and should be
trusted no further than they can be thrown .. analogous, in my book,
to politicians .. perhaps the anonymous are the /only/ entities we
can trust...

--

Oinker - anonymous today in case any of you are my clients :P