From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 18:29:45 -0800 (PST)
To: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Secrecy: My life as a nym. (Was: nym blown?)
Message-ID: <3.0b28.32.19961113183614.00b33c10@ricochet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 07:31 PM 11/12/96 -0800, Detweiler/VZ Nuri wrote:
>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"?

You've neglected to mention that your (e.g., "the madman's") messages were
criticizing the use of pseudonyms, and the use of more than one identity by
an individual person. You've also neglected to mention that you (a single
person) were using multiple identities to argue that multiple identities
were harmful.

In general, you're conflating several positions:

1. Fluid identities (e.g., imprecise or unregulated mapping between
personas and flesh-and-blood bodies) cannot be prevented;

2. Fluid identities should be tolerated;

3. Fluid identities should be encouraged.
  
>one noted proponent of pseudonymity, whom we will merely call "Timmy", 
>regularly takes great glee in misattributing my own posts to some 
>deranged crackpot running loose in cyberspace. is this a case
>of respecting my identity? suppose I really was this person-- 
>shouldn't Timmy's position be one of respect for my use of
>a pseudonym?

I can't speak for Tim, but your messages do cause me to consider these
ethical questions - e.g., is it more important to focus on what you've
argued (that multiple identities are bad), or what you're doing (using
multiple identities), or on a "politeness" principle, e.g., that
gentle[wo]men don't reveal each other's identities.

Arguments about a "right to be pseudonymous" are as problematic as the
recent "free speech" arguments, where the identity of the right isn't so
much in question as is who it is enforceable against - e.g., I can't force
someone else to let me use their stuff to speak freely. Can I force someone
else (not only with law, but with appeals to morality or contract or
politeness or other forms of nongovernmental regulation) to address me by a
chosen pseudonym, or prevent them from linking multiple identities? 

I think there is (or should be) a "politeness norm" which limits linking
between identities, just as I see one which limits the disclosure of other
personal data; I don't give out other people's home phone numbers to third
parties, I don't pass along the identity of a person's "significant other"
or home address, and otherwise try to let each person choose how much they
want to disclose about their personal lives to the rest of the world. And I
hope that they will do the same for me. It's not especially unusual for
folks on the list to use abbreviated or pseudonymous identities; but the
"strength" of these is limited as we meet each other in person, do business
with each other, etc. It's difficult to form a strong relationship without
getting to know others, but it's difficult to preserve privacy and let
someone get to know you. A principle which preserves both values (privacy
and disclosure) seems useful.

But I also think that politeness norms are limited in their applicability -
in particular, I also think it's useful to subject other people to the
rules they propose should be applicable to everyone. This is a good way to
try out proposed rules, and in some cases to help people understand why
their rules are stupid. You have written that the use of pseudonyms and
multiple identities is wrong. So I think it's reasonable to expect you to
live up to the standards you've argued should be applied to all people. So
you don't get the benefit (at least from me) of the politeness norms about
pseudonyms. If you've changed your mind about the morality of
"pseudospoofing", by all means, let me know. 

I believe that you are familiar with the "subject others to their own
rules" rule, because it is the rule you're using/have used to justify your
use of multiple identities, hmm? 

>the basic
>cpunk philosophy, as amply illustrated by 2/3 of its founders, is
>"look out for #1 only, and don't waste time on something as
>inane as selfless public service or leadership"

I suspect you intended this as some sort of indictment, but I don't know if
you'll get a lot of disagreement (or even surprise). This philosophy seems
to be at the core of much libertarian thought and free-market economics,
two themes which are popular on the list. I think it's far too
old-fashioned to qualify as "cypherpunk", but you're in the wrong place if
you're hoping to insult someone by saying that. 

--
Greg Broiles                | "In this court, appellant and respondent are the
gbroiles@netbox.com         |  same person. Each party has filed a brief."
http://www.io.com/~gbroiles |  Lodi v. Lodi, 173 Cal.App.3d 628, 219 Cal.
                            |  Rptr. 116 (3rd Dist, 1985)