response to tmp

17 Dec 2003

      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

tmp offers some thoughts on a "position" paper by Hal Finney:
...
...
The level of anarchy will inevitably increase as larger numbers of
people acquire net access.
it seems to me that the cypherpunks already have a name for the kind
of anarchy that can happen when somebody uses pseudonyms to harass and
cause trouble. that word is `detweiler'. do you really know what
I don't think Hal is implying all the new people that acquire net
access will harass and cause trouble.
...
hal argues below that `you already know nothing about the people you
interact with on the net' and that `anonymous remailers introduce no
more problems than are already present on the net'. these seem to me
to be flawed arguments. here's why.
[story about going to a party]
1. [do we really want an online environment where identity is as
    transitory as a nym on IRC?]
2. [it seems that identity is intrinsic]
3. [anonymous remailers]
But see, you are taking things to extremes.  Anonimity has its
purposes; in some situtations it is valuable, in others it isn't.
I should be able to be anonymous if I so desire.

1. Do you want a real life where identity is permanent and accessible
to everybody?  Where you carry an assortment of cards totally indexing
your life and all activities, so in case you meet new people they can
quickly be brought up on the sum total of your existence?

2. Identity is instrinsic.  How true; by the way, what is yours?  I
find it incongruous for you to be railing against anonymity and
privacy when you yourself hide behind them.

3. Anonymous remailers are just PARTS of a solution; the rest involves
digital signatures and reputation systems.  I say anonymity is
valuable, and to this end, anonymous remailers are valuable.

Part of the reason I am loathe to get involved in a detailed
discussion with you is that I suspect you are like David Sternlight or
Larry Detweiler

** of course, not that I am implying you are either of these people

but I have found in the past the both have a tendency to ignore
various questions they find "inconvenient"

for example, I once cited several instances of real life cases of
pseudonymous activity (whatever Mr. Detweiler called them) and another
that demonstrates the value of anonymity.  Mr. Detweiler swept these
under the rug and by and large ignored them! 

Of course, since I am not implying you are Mr. Detweiler, after all,
he is of a philosophical camp in which anonymity and identity hiding
is bad.  He certainly wouldn't rejoin this list under a name any other
that his real one.

Thus I conclude you aren't familiar with my previous examples.
...
but is it the case that all cypherpunks can say they have never
tried to censor anyone by notes to sysadmins, i.e. of detweiler?
I think you are confusing censorship with association.  Just because I
no longer wish to read Mr. Detweiler's rants and raves, and report
activity such as various threats to his sysadmin, doesn't mean
censorship.
...
the cypherpunk vision seems to split the world into two groups:
those people i trust (my friends) and everyone else (whom i completely
distrust with intense paranoia). this is a very xenophobic and
chauvinistic philosophy at heart.
You need to get off your extreme analogies.  For certain interactions,
dividing the world into "trusted" and "non trusted" partitions is
necessary; for others, it isn't.  I don't see the cypherpunks vision
as dividing everything into the extreme case.
...
for example, it seems to me you cypherpunks have a very important
agenda, but you seem to be extremists. the important goal is `defining
Hah, you should examine some of your opinions, I find them just as
extreme in the other direction.  Always citing the worst case
scenario, the extreme position, etc.
...
so what the cypherpunks might consider is a less extremist
elucidation of what `privacy' means. for example, cypherpunks, what
information should a bank be allowed to have on you when you go in to
request a loan? what should companies be allowed to do with credit
histories, and what rights does the individual have to influence them?
I agree with this summary, these are concerns all of us have (privacy,
etc.)
...
if you continue to insist that `nobody should know who i am' i fear
you will be bypassed by more sophisticated groups that have a less
polarized view of issues of identity and privacy. and it will
The point of anonymity is to allow you to express these "unpopular"
views without fear of reprisal.