From: dork39@wov.com Hf> This is true, but the main purpose of this technology is to prevent Hf> users from creating large numbers of pseudonymous accounts. No Hf> technology can stop people from cooperating in an on-line forum, and Hf> the use of friends' or family members' accounts is also very hard to Hf> prevent. So collusion at some limited level will always be possible. Hf> But at least it should be possible to prevent the massive use of nyms. Hang on a mo. I'm new here and so I don't know how this started. If you would be so kind, what is the "problem" here about "massive use of nyms?" Seems to me that is a kind of self-limiting bookkeeping job for the user of nyms: like which ones are for what. Have you guys ever tried to DO a system of nyms for any important purpose? It is NOT a whole lot of fun: much more resembling hard work. You see I think there are plenty of reasons that reasonable people would agree are valid for some people to use nyms, even large numbers of nyms. For example I know a lawyer who uses a lot of nyms (and anon PGP keys) to create "clusters" of people involved with individual legal cases. It strikes me as a very well organized system for a good purpose. The people involved in a given case can all talk to each other about it, and outsiders or people in other cases don't get to peek in, or even know what the group is about or who's in it without going to a LOT of trouble. Since Phil is going to release the story to the Wall St. Journal anyway, I guess I can mention that the encryption method of CHOICE for the valiant fighters against SLORC in Burma (who are the worst kind of bad guys by any measure) is PGP and they are, of course, ALL using "nyms" and sterilized anon keys and so on. They are by FAR the heaviest PGP users in this part of the world. Full time trainers and the works. But you can surely see how they might not want to tell the thugs where to come to get them and their families for a course in extended torture. Now you guys with "ID" fetishes are seeing this as a PROBLEM? Excuse me very much, but I think I need to see a LOT of explaining about that. Note this principle: people with a NEED for anonymity are NOT going to want to get permission from, or even talk to, some Central Authority first. There is no way that you or anyone else is going to be able to decide if any use of anonymity is "legitimate" or not. If there are "problems" with that, it seems to me that your efforts are best directed into figuring out how you can live with it, and not about how you can "control" or "prevent" it. (Hey I am ever so sorry to hear how some people used nyms to cheat in a game. But somehow my reaction was "so what?" and to bang my [Enter] key right smartly. There are people in the world without the time or inclination to play games. Perhaps sometime in the next century I might personally get enough slack and curiosity to take a look at some computer game myself--who knows? But, you know, even if I do, I kind of think I will have a real hard time working up a lot of anxiety about possible cheating.) In the meanwhile not only do I support nyms and other anonymity, but I intend to use plenty of them, and will resist any attempts to preclude that in every way I can. GENERAL ADVICE TO ALL ONLOOKERS: Since it looks like self-appointed "ID police" are working hard to prevent you from using anonymity, I suggest that if you ever think that you might ever have a NEED for anonymity at any time in the future, that you take a little time off and set up a supply for yourself of nyms and so on and embed them in the system before these guys get their prevention systems in place. Do that NOW, because this kind of thinking is a THREAT to you.