cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1996-11-13 - Re: Secrecy: My life as a nym. (Was: nym blown?)

Header Data

From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
To: “Vladimir Z. Nuri” <vznuri@netcom.com>
Message Hash: ab34c68e0c9eba615a8e3c37f04f927f7410f2dd32dded7fa94ea290e5b7d1a8
Message ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.961113091632.16315A-100000@crl.crl.com>
Reply To: <199611130331.TAA28661@netcom11.netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-11-13 17:35:55 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:35:55 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:35:55 -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.3.91.961113091632.16315A-100000@crl.crl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Larry 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"?  

In general, Cypherpunks promote the ABILITY to use pseudonyms.
"Respect pseudonyms" (whatever that means), is clearly a separate
issue.  In fact, by trying to "bust" a pseudonym, C'punks are
contributing to evolution in action.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thread