From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 04:11:11 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: The closed Nym list
In-Reply-To: <34957D5E.720C5BC5@alaska.net>
Message-ID: <v03102807b0bb2a0d5305@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



(I'm cross-posting this to the Nym list. While posts from within the Nym
list are not supposed to be cross-posted outside the list, there are of
course no rules about including articles from the outside world, or from
cross-posting _in_. Followups may have to edit the distribution list,
though.)


At 11:56 AM -0700 12/15/97, Daniel J. Boone wrote:

>The Nym list appears to be closed.  (The web page says so -- so I didn't
>try.)  This state of affairs may even be my fault.  The history, for
>those who care, is appended.
>
>It's a shame -- if David Brin really is posting there as one of Tim's
>recent messages suggested I'd be very interested in seeing his posts.
>(Thanks, Tim, for reposting yours here.)

Yes, it's a shame. And, as you and others have pointed out, anyone who
thinks their messages on the "Nym" list will not eventually be published or
made available to Web search engines has been living on another planet for
the past several years.

Let me emphasize that I fully support Declan's right to run his list as he
sees fit. Normally I avoid posting to lists that are under the personal
control of some editor or manager, which is why I have avoided Coderpunks,
Cryptography, Fight-Censorship, etc. But I made an exception in this case,
as I felt the topic of "nyms" was just too important to me to avoid the
list on a matter of principle.

The motivation for the "closed list, no retransmission outside the list"
rule was mostly because some of the participants wanted to be able to speak
freely without being quoted in other places, as I understood the arguments.
Declan said that several participants had told him they wouldn't feel
comfortable posting to the list if they knew their comments might appear
elsewhere. (Sorry I can't quote it exactly, but that's the rule the list is
operated under.)

It's _doubly_ ironic because digital pseudonyms can be used for just this
sort of protection, and because we currently have only one obvious
pseudonym (Black Unicorn) posting. I believe that submissions to the list
must be by subscribers only, as Declan said recently that he is considering
allowing posting from addresses other than those subscribers subscribed
under.

This means a list devoted to discussion of digital pseudonyms is itself
being protected by laws (Declan's laws) rather than by technology. It also
means the sage participants are being shielded from some of the more
interesting uses of nyms.

Doubly ironic, indeed.

Having said this, it's not all that big a deal. I've felt little need to
retransmit the messages of others to this and other lists. Nor do I care
especially strongly that the participants on Nym are themselves being
shielded from nyms. It bemuses me.

>I still don't think it makes much sense to have a conversation about the
>use of nyms and then try to protect the posters' words from public
>view.  If posters are concerned about public scrutiny, why not use a
>nym?  Not to mention the fact that one would have to keep the list
>closed to have a prayer of enforcing the no-repost rule.

Indeed.


--Tim May

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."