From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 21:33:18 +0800
To: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
Subject: Re: Voluntary Disclosure of True Names
In-Reply-To: <ae53a8ec0c021004c604@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <199609051749.KAA12335@netcom20.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



TCM
>>I think cpunks should hold the view that communication is a matter
>>of mutual consent between sender and receiver. if a receiver says,
>>"I don't want any anonymous messages", then should be able to block them.
>
>But this is precisely what nearly all of us have been arguing. Namely, that
>the issue of anonymity vs. providing of True Names, is a matter of
>_contract_ between parties, not something the government is justified in
>sticking its nose into.

well, I was satirizing the "extremist cpunk position" which is stronger
than the above. I noticed you didn't use the cpunk four-letter-word,
"we", but used a nearly equivalent construction.

I have seen it repeated here often that somehow anonymity is some kind
of a "right" that one should have in all kinds of different & important
transactions, not merely on "cyberspace debate societies". I see
here frequently the implication that *private*entities* that want to
enforce identity in their own transactions are somehow implementing
a corrupt, orwellian system. it sounded to me like that was all
Dyson was advocating.

also, I think you are being slightly disingenuous in masking your own
and other cpunks major objections to traceability, with the above,
"this is all we really want". what about situations
where the government requires you to give a physical identity for
some kind of a license etc? do you think there are no such valid
situations? is there any role for a government whatsoever in 
CryptoAnarchist Utopia and if so, is there any situation in which
demanding physical identity is reasonable?

>No, Dyson said "Therefore I would favor allowing anonymity -- with some
>form of traceability only under terms considerably stronger than what are
>generally required for a wiretap."
>
>This implies a role for government, and concomitant restrictions on related
>anonymity technologies, to provide traceability. So much for mutual
>agreement between sender and recipient.

it's clear Dyson hasn't totally thought out her position on anonymity. 
imho you are reading too much into her existing positions. because of your
government paranoia, you assume that when someone says they want
traceability, they are implying they want the government to
enforce it in all situations. 

>(I have nothing against senders and recipients agreeing to use the services
>of some third party in providing ultimate traceability. I'm not wild about
>the U.S. Government being this third party, paid for by tax money, but so
>long as it is not required, it's a minor concern to me.

that's what something like what Dyson has been referring to would suggest
to me. that is, that's exactly the system she sounded like she was
loosely advocating.

 I surmise, though,
>that use of the U.S. Government as a third party would not be optional, in
>the schemes of Dyson, Denning, and others of that ilk.)

Denning, yes; Dyson, I don't think so. remember Dyson has written
extensively on the subject of "the end of copyright" in some very
interesting essays and ideas. one major reason you would want to
enforce traceability in cyberspace would be to prevent copyright
infringement. so by attacking or "reforming" the concept of 
copyright, I'd say Dyson is very close to cpunk agendas and ideals
from what I have loosely seen.

there is something I've observed among extremists. by arguing
for an extreme position, they tend to polarize the world and
push away proposals that may actually benefit themselves in the
long run. in other words, a system A that is "close" to their
goals comes along, and if implemented would support them with
some minor compromises. but the extremists, such as there are
many on this list, say, "A is not good enough for us". but
then the window of opportunity is closed, and all future
proposals B, C, D, etc. are even worse and one may even
get implemented. so it becomes very important to "know when to
settle". extremists think that they are promoting their goals
when they reject anything less than perfect, when in fact they
may be sabotaging their own agenda in doing so.

one example I have brought up before: the post office is
setting up a digital signature system. it could be a good
way for cpunks to educate the public, to get crypto to the
masses, and to put in safeguards
that prevent misuse and try to guarantee it will be voluntary.
but intead they flame it as the beginning of Big Brother.

the problem is the mindset that "if its associated with government,
it is evil".  this can be self-sabotaging. but again I'm arguing
in subtleties that few here will grasp so I think I'll just
quit while I'm behind <g>