From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:11:13 -0800 (PST)
To: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Secrecy: My life as a nym. (Was: nym blown?)
In-Reply-To: <199611130331.TAA28661@netcom11.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.961113155458.2905D-100000@polaris>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

> >I'm sure some clever participant at DCSB will do a pile of homework before
> >coming to my talk and put it all together.  So be it.  If he or she is
> >polite, they might chide me in private a bit, but not blather all over the
> >list just to show how very clever they were.  As long as they enjoy the
> >talk, I'm not overly concerned.
> 
> or then again, maybe they'll sell it to BLACKNET!! <g>
> 
> actually Unicorn, eventually voice analysis software may
> evolve to the point that someone could match people
> based on their voices to public speech databases, and you
> could be nailed through your phone conversations. hmmmm, have you
> ever had a conversation with someone who might have been
> taping you for amusement?

Probably.

> 
> (heh. you write a long, self-indulgent letter about the extremes
> you have gone to keep your ID secret, and pretend to be blase' &
> nonchalant if someone discovers it? I think I can see through
> that smokescreen.)

You didn't read very carefully.  I'd hardly call the modest efforts I made
extreme.  This was the entire point.  If explaining my successes with
moderate efforts so that others might duplicate it (I think that apathy is
why more nyms [like yours] are unsuccessful as privacy tools) then how is
that self-indulgent?

> actually, I heard this interesting rumor that Unicorn threatened
> to sue someone who "defamed" his pseudonym. quite an amusing
> story if true, given his last essay that talks about how he
> created the pseudonym in the first place to avoid exactly what
> it accomplishes, i.e. dissociating his professional identity
> from the "lunatic anarchist" writhing beneath the surface.

You fail to not that dissociating one identity from another requires the
existence of two identities.  Is the second any less entitled to
protection than the first?

> actually, there are some amusing things going on here with cpunk
> "rules." are cpunks in favor of pseudonyms or not? one famous
> cpunk madman wrote under a pseudonym to the list, and many
> cypherpunk went to great lengths to try to derive his identity.
> is this a case of respecting pseudonyms? or is it more a case of
> the double standard at best, hypocrisy at worst, 
> "respect my pseudonyms, but yours are fair game"?  

No.  That is the pseudo-cpunk attitude.

The real cypherpunks attitude can be illustrated thusly:

Two men are walking down a street, a psychologist and an economist.  They
happen along on a $100 bill.  Thinking he will evaluate the response of
the economist, the psychologist ignores the clearly visible bill.  To his
surprise the economist ignores it as well.  On asking the economist why he
did not pick up the bill, the psychologist recieves this answer:

"If it was really a $100 bill, someone would have picked it up already."

An old joke, but it makes an important point.  It is not enough to know
how the market system works, but also to participate it.  This is why I
believe using those legal tools that are available is an important step.
There is no morality other than the morality of the market.  I submit that
we do not need a central authority to dictate morality.  We need only
individual views of morality.  There will only be as large a pornography
market as there is a demand.  Ditto for narcotics, guns.  If the market
believes that porn is immoral, customers, by their own moral decision,
will reduce the market to nothing.  Of course this will not happen
in the near future because the cost of this moral choice exceeds the
benefit for many customers.

Why is use of the legal system any different?  If it is so wrong for me to
use the legal system as it stands, and if I am to be the subject of
criticism for the conduct, then aren't the critics imposing their moral
view on me?  Isn't this what libertarian cypherpunks dislike in the first
place?

The bottom line is that the decision to sue is much like the decision to
use a legal tax loop.  I would call "idiot" the person who refused to
utilize that which the government hands him. (Did not Mr. May indicate
that the $1000.00 or so that the government would hand him was too costly
to lose, even in the face of estlablishing privacy for his children?  In
my view that is a rational decision.  Mr. May has priced privacy.  My
objection to his rationale was that I think the cost of obtaining it can
be significantly lower).

If the government is going to hand me the means to curb conduct which may
be harmful to me, why should I refuse to use it on some "moral" grounds.
(The moral grounds might consist of "well it's not a nice thing to do." 
but other than that, I am at a loss to identify them precisely).

I submit that if law suits are so harmful and create such loss, eventually
they will be eliminated by one of several mechanisms.

Cypherpunks that they might speed the process by using that entitlement
which the government gives them.

[Remaining nonsense deleted]

--
Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures
Finger for Public Key   Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern
Vote Monarchist         Switzerland