From: Rich Graves <rcgraves@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 17:03:16 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Rush disses anonymity
In-Reply-To: <v03007800aea91c1473f2@[206.119.69.46]>
Message-ID: <3287CCBD.7C2E@ix.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Robert Hettinga wrote:
> 
> I'm sitting here listening to Rush, and he's talking about Pierre
> Salanger's recent "discovery" ;-) of the anonymously posted 
> friendly-fire TWA800 internet message of a few months back.

I must say I was pleased (and, I'm sorry to say, surprised) not to hear 
people talking about that "conspiracy" on this list. I gave a friend at 
the Merc hell for publishing a story saying that maybe there was 
something to it because there was some web site with "details of 
possible trajectories and everything." Morons.

> In the process of discounting the story, and praising FBI pal 
> Kalstrom, he bemoans the anonymity of the net, calling it a "nest of 
> kooks", (mixed in with all the other "right thinking people", of
> course...).
> 
> Given this, and, of course, our own fun and games with anonymous, er,
> slander, on this list, I'm frequently tempted to agree with him.

You people are wimps. The only real effect of the good doctor's rants 
has been, as Mr. May indicated, to get the good doctor on the "don't 
hire" list.

> After all,
> if someone says something wrong about you, how do find them and punish
> them? How do you know what the truth is, unless you know who said it?

You get off your ass and find out directly.

How about if you know exactly who it is, but you know him to be 
judgement-proof, since he's already saddled with over $12 million in 
libel and wrongful-death suits? It's called "reputation capital."

> Until, of course, I remember that anonymity is unpreventable, and,
> frankly, economically necessary for true internet commerce.
> 
> Remember what agrarianism did to try to stop industrialism (up to, and
> including, socialism <he said, trolling for leftists>), and expect the
> worst, folks.

People are just going to have to be smarter than they've ever been. The 
Net enables sharing and verifying real information just as it enables 
disinformation. Sure disinformation will always be cheaper to produce 
and more appealing to the eye (fact is harder to accept than fiction 
because fictional plots are written to make sense), but disinformation 
tends to cancel itself out.

Work on archives, reputation control, and openness. Disinformation, to 
be truly effective, requires a monopoly on information. More speech, not 
less.

(Keep in reserve the retort that anonymity is quite big in "the 
mainstream," too. How many key stories cite "well-placed 
administration sources"?)

The opposite of the Black Unicorn approach to nym safety is the Liz 
Taylor approach: "As long as they spell my name right, I don't care."
Nobody I care about is going to listen to some crank, or if they do, 
they'll email me to check the facts, or if they don't, I have 
alternative outlets for information. As long as I live in a free country 
with a free Internet, they can't touch me.

Oh, btw, it's helped that I've resigned myself to forever working for 
decent people who don't give in to such bullshit.

-rich