At 08:45 PM 4/17/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, David Honig wrote:
Persistent, untraceable nym.
Both.
Untraceables without persistance are useful mostly for email. Persistent & untraceable, that's part of the Realization.
Well, part of it, probably. The point being there are many 'kinds' of 'anonymity'. They are not(!) all equivalent.
Yes that is one of the things you can actually learn from this group if your receiver can handle the S/N ratio.
If there is no 'persistance' the requirement that it be 'untraceable' is moot, unless you plan on coming back (very bad idea to ever visit the same place twice, or stay in the same place more than 24 hours).
If you have a non-persistant but traceable nym, what's the point? Suppose you use a one-time email account to threaten the president, but the message is traceable to your carcass (e.g., the internet cafe had surveillance cameras). You may as well use your Meat Name; its gonna hit the papers anyway. On the other hand, a non-persistant and untraceable nym is good for threatening the president, but not useful for reputation building. A persistant but untraceable nym is good for commerce. All are possible. All are useful. Ergo, all will come about, whether you like it or not.